NationStates Jolt Archive

THESE RULES ARE NOT YET OFFICIAL IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. This is only a draft version!



Rule of thumb definition of a native:
Someone in the region before your invading group arrived that is not a confirmed part of another invading group ('defenders', other invasion groups, etc). Note that 'spies' planted in a region do not count as natives. (Then again, a good spy does not get caught as such.)

Regarding ejecting and/or banning people in a captured region:
-Non-natives may be kicked and banned.
-Natives may NOT be banned for longer than ONE system update. (In other words, about 24 hours.)
-An invader delegate may eject a 'small number' of tactical natives to try and maintain power. This number is roughly determined as 10% of the region's population OR 20 people, whichever value is smaller, at any given time. Note that this is not a concrete value- each complaint of griefing must be handled on a case by case basis.

Regarding password protecting a captured region:
-The password MUST be telegrammed to ALL natives within one system update of the password being set. The invader delegate and his or her group is responsible for ensuring the password is sent out. Passing it out to some of the natives and instructing them to 'pass it on' is not an acceptable excuse in the event of the password not going out.
-The password must be CLEARLY stated when handed out to the natives. If the password has ''s or ""s on the ends, be sure that this fact is clear. Setting the password as a swear word that is filtered by the censor is no excuse, either.
-If a native loses the password (for instance, it accidentally gets flooded out of their TG box), and they request it again, it must be given to them.

Misc. Information:
-An invader who endorses a delegate that then griefs the invaded region is not automatically slated for deletion UNLESS evidence is found that the endorser was aware of the invader delegate's intent. They will be given a warning, however. An invader who accumulates three such warnings will be ejected from the UN. EDIT: in practice the three warnings thing is seldom enforced. In all actuality, it's more than likely that you'll get ejected the first or second time. It depends on the Moderator in question.
-Invader delegates who deliberately try to push the envelope/abuse loopholes/flagrantly break these rules will be deleted. Invader delegates who are determined to simply not have been aware will be warned and/or ejected from the UN
-As always, using UN multies, spamming the regional happenings or civil headquarters will be treated as it always has been. Multies get ejected from the UN or deleted; spammers get warned once, deleted on a repeat offense; really bad spammers get deleted ASAP.
-If you are planning an invasion and are uncertain the legality of any particular aspect of your plan, telegram a mod about it first. We will keep such information confidential (in other words, we won't go giving the target region or defender groups any warning that it's coming), and can help ensure that your plan is not in violation of any of the rules.

Alright, that's what we've got thus far. We want some input from you guys, particularly on the numbers. We're fairly confident that an invasion force can hold a region with a maximum number of ejections of around 20, unless the counter-invasion or defending group is particularly well organized, in which case, tough cookies.

The revision also gives a solid timeframe in which an invader has to get the password out, which should prevent players who are just flat out anti-invasions from crying to the mods as soon as an invasion occurs that "Oh no! They just took over and passworded Region A an hour ago and didn't send me the password yet!". The revision also includes that natives can be banned long enough for them to lose their endorsements, which should even the odds out for invaders a bit.

You'll also notice that endorsing an invader delegate who then griefs is no longer a deleteable offense. This is primarily because it would be far too easy for Griefer Joe's Throwaway Puppet to trick Invader Jane into endorsing him by swearing he'll follow the rules, and then break them just to get Invader Jane deleted. As for the three strikes and then UN ejection... well, if Invader Jane ends up supporting Griefer Joe, then Griefer Smith, and then Griefer Betty, should Invader Jane really be trying to play at invasions anyway?

In theory, this will also make less work for the mods, rather than more, because many of the grey areas have been more clearly defined, which should make griefing complaints easier and faster to investigate.

In any event, please comment. Preferably constructive commentary. It's fine if you just want to say "I like it/hate it/OMG U MODS DON'T KNOW WHAT THE EFF UR TALKING ABOUT!", but we would really prefer comments that will help us make sure these are as fair as possible to both invaders and to the invadees.

http://rpstudios.ian-justman.com/junk/CGgoods/RepProdtheModsig2.JPG
~Evil Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~Master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

I think it *could* be better, although I'm not one to give sugestions.

-Natives may NOT be banned for longer than ONE system update. (In other words, about 24 hours.)

-The password MUST be telegrammed to ALL natives within one system update of the password being set.

got a question..
can mods see when a delegate kicked someone out, or when a region was passworded, even when it's no longer on the regional happenings? otherwise this one will be very hard to check.
also more annoying for natives..

Note that 'spies' planted in a region do not count as natives. (Then again, a good spy does not get caught as such

when would a defender's puppet be considered a native, and when not?
i can imagine that one sitting in a region, doing nothing but get the password from invaders when the region gets invaded doesn't count as one, but if the puppet is active in the region, interacts with the other people in it? would it then be considered a native?
just curious bout this, cause i also got puppets in some regions to keep in touch with friends..

I appeciate the mods opening things up for discussion. This is certainly refreshing.

Note that 'spies' planted in a region do not count as natives. (Then again, a good spy does not get caught as such.)
Does this mean mods will not use their superpowers to sniff out spies and that attempting such deception is officially "legal" (ie, no ramifications to the main nation/player if a puppet is used?).

-Natives may NOT be banned for longer than ONE system update. (In other words, about 24 hours.)
This is a decent compromise.

-If you are planning an invasion and are uncertain the legality of any particular aspect of your plan, telegram a mod about it first.
The reverse should be true as well. If a mod wants to terminate an invasion, he/she must contact the invader first, so he has time to plead his case. Unless the invader is a multi or spamming or something, but those activities fall under other rules that are unrelated to invasions and don't need to be covered here.

I also have some concerns that these rules are still somewhat biased towards defenders, but I'll save those thoughts for later.

At least we have a template to work with now.

Is a "system update" just the main update where delegate positions change? Or is it either of the two updates? If it's the former, this would seem to actually allow an invader delegate to ban natives for about 47 hours (unbanning them just before the second main update), which I think is far too long. In fact, I reckon 24 hours would be too long as well, bearing in mind that the natives are probably a small group of people who want nothing to do with some silly little invasion.

In a region of less than ten people, would all ejections of natives usually be illegal?

I think there should be a limit on the length and characters an invader delegate can use in a region password. No more than eight charecters, all letters or numbers, perhaps. Otherwise there'll probably be ridiculously long passwords with all manner of weird symbols in them.


Would these rules apply to the Pacifics in exactly the same way?

Pacific applicability: is Francos allowed to eject more than 20 people?

Pacific applicability: is Francos allowed to eject more than 20 people?

I would assume yes since he was legally elected delegate (sorta).

But the rule is that a region's Founder can boot anyone they want (I'm pretty sure on that one) But since the pacific doesn't have a founder, I think the delegate takes that responsibility.

Spoffin, I obviously am not a Mod but I believe that in The Pacific Francos would be the defending Delegate and therefore would not follow the same set of rules.

To the Mods:

I would like to see some specific clarification on "hawking" or the refounding of griefed regions. I know from personal experience that a lot of players are not aware of the protocol on this.

But the rule is that a region's Founder can boot anyone they want (I'm pretty sure on that one) But since the pacific doesn't have a founder, I think the delegate takes that responsibility.That has not been the precedent in any other region without a founder, or anywhere in which a founder has died.

I think the new rules our very good, they allow the invaders some time to relax. Well Done Mods!!!

Looks good. :)

The rules seem very good, but I have a few comments to make.

1. No one talks about founders. Everyone knows that founders own the region, but you might want to explicitly state this if you're making one big rule book.

2. You might want to make distinctions that some of these rules don't apply to the feeder regions (Pacifics and RR).

3. Are there different degrees of punishment for say, being found guilty of going over the 10% level by a bit as opposed to griefing the region (ejecting everyone)?

4. There are no punishments specified until the Misc. section. Should there be punishments written in for not handing out the password, banning at 10% and banning natives. Obviously there are punishments, they just aren't written into this.

Is a "system update" just the main update where delegate positions change? Or is it either of the two updates? If it's the former, this would seem to actually allow an invader delegate to ban natives for about 47 hours (unbanning them just before the second main update), which I think is far too long

I agree, this could be a very bad loophole to fly through. If the invaders were able to get the timing right, they could leave the password/eject to hearts content, for almost two whole days. I'm not sure how to remedy this, but it does need to be addressed.

The Pacific cases are irrelivant, since Francos is not an invader. Or if he is, he's been an invaser for waaaaaay too long and has broken more than just the ejection rule. Six months means native, as far as I'm concerned.

And another question. I never really saw the point of invading in-as-much as it was just taking over a region and then letting it go. So, my question is, after you invade a region and take over, can you start recruiting for your own region? I know that is against the rules to recruit in player reginos but technically, once you are the delegate, it's your region. The reason I aks is because I've done this once with a regino I was involved with.

The region had about 20 nations in it but only five of them were in the UN. So we came in with four nations, which was enough to take the delegacy, the former only had it by three, banned three of the native UN's, passworded the region, and then began telegramming everyone, asking the to join our region.

Personally, this seems like the only reason to invade. To end the story, we gained about 5 nations out of the excursion, but I would like to know if that was really legal. And if could be done again.

I think that the biggest thing that needs to be clarified are the definitions. Native is fine, but invasion, invader, invader delegate, native delegate.


Can you be a native delegate with outside support? What rules differ between an internally elected delegate and an invader one? Can an invader "clear the ground" for a native delegate, taking power through invasion then handing it back to someone with only native endorsements so they become a native delegate? Do ejected nations retain native status, ie: have to be given the password within 24 hours, even if they're not in the region? If so, when does this expire?

Should make things interesting, looks pretty good for a first draft.

Ok this whole password thing is hard. Say you invade a region with 100 nations. You have the anti-spam thing on so it will take about an hour to do that. There needs to be a mass telegram system for delegate and founders, and you can create groups. In a sense make it so you can place nations into mailing list. For example, the USSR; I would have all the USSR Military nations in a group, and I can put them into a group and telegram them all at once. I could put all the UN nations into a group so I can telegram them all at once. Best of all for invaders you can select all 100 nations and telegram the password at once. Thoughts?

thats whats been on everyones mind all along.

but it won't happen. I don't think they will do any more coding for the game.

If they did do this it shouldn't be allowed for recruiting anyway. Only for founders and in the case of founderless regions delegates.

But good luck with that one dude :)

This is why I wouldn't bother with passwords. Lots of hassle and hardly any benefit, cos everybody knows them.

They won't code the game anymore.

And if you were able to have a mass telegram system, too many people would abuse it, especially recruiter-founders.

how long would it take the invading delegate to become the native delegate?

They won't code the game anymore.

And if you were able to have a mass telegram system, too many people would abuse it, especially recruiter-founders.Or spammers.

The current rule is that for an invading delegate to be considered Native, he/she must carry a greater number of native endorsements than the former Native delegate... Which is kinda confusing, so let me give an example:

Native 1 is the delegate, he/she has 15 endorsements at the time of invasion. In order for Invader 1, the invader delegate, to be considered native, he/she must obtain 16 native endorsements, regardless of the number of invader/defender/neutral endorsements he/she has - in other words, if the invader delegate has 40 endorsements, but only 15 come from Natives, he/she is still an invader.

The reasoning behind this is quite simple. Invader delegates sometimes become popular among the invaded region, and this allows him/her to become a native in that region through the show of native support - i.e. enough native endorsements that he/she would've become delegate had there been an internal coup.

Hmmmm, well, sounds like these will make this even more interesting. :wink: lol

Regarding ejecting and/or banning people in a captured region:
24 hours MAX
Great

There's nothing about Founders

What about recruiting by the Invaders within that region ?

What would you like to see about founders?

And recruiting by invaders falls under the other rules regarding recruitment/spam/etc.

This new draft is a very good improvement from the current laws. Its good to know the mods have recognised the issues brought up by many invaders.

Obviously the most significant change being that invaders are allowed to eject without fear, up to 10% of the population for a 24 hour period.

These points still need to be clarified further though:

As The Singular has already stated, you might as well say in the draft that you can eject up to 10% natives for 24 hours..rather than saying until the next update. That way there is less confusion.

Also, If Joe Shmo Invader decided to eject nativebob for 24 hours..then joe lets him back in... Can Joe eject nativebob again for another 24 hours? Or is Joe allowed only to eject nativebob 1 time?

Or, after nativebob has been ejected for 24 hours and gets let back in..Can Joe shmo eject him again and again..but be required to immediatly unban him?

And another thing, Is it 10% of the population..or 20 people?

Please clarify further! :D

Again, this new draft looks promising, thank you for working on these needed changes. When this becomes law, gameplay will definatly be improved.

What would you like to see about founders?

Nothing really..IMO the current laws about them are fine.

This new draft is a very good improvement from the current laws. Its good to know the mods have recognised the issues brought up by many invaders.

Obviously the most significant change being that invaders are allowed to eject without fear, up to 10% of the population for a 24 hour period.

These points still need to be clarified further though:

As The Singular has already stated, you might as well say in the draft that you can eject up to 10% natives for 24 hours..rather than saying until the next update. That way there is less confusion. Duly noted. I agree with you on this one.


Also, If Joe Shmo Invader decided to eject nativebob for 24 hours..then joe lets him back in... Can Joe eject nativebob again for another 24 hours? Or is Joe allowed only to eject nativebob 1 time?

Or, after nativebob has been ejected for 24 hours and gets let back in..Can Joe shmo eject him again and again..but be required to immediatly unban him?
I like the second one better - of course, remember, it's not merely 10% of the population at one time - it's 10% throughout the invasion. So, whether you eject 10 players immediately or 2 a day for a week from a 100 player region, eject that 11th player, and it's griefing.


And another thing, Is it 10% of the population..or 20 people? 10% or 20, whichever is fewer.



Please clarify further! :D

Again, this new draft looks promising, thank you for working on these needed changes. When this becomes law, gameplay will definatly be improved.Yeah, it's been a long time in the making, but it's finally about done. So, for all you that thought we were just ignoring you, HAH! IN ur face!!! :P

Ok here is a Hypothetical.

Suppose I found the region

Loop's seekrit house of pr0n

and it gets a pile of members,
then it gets invaded Now,
whos opinion matters in defining invasion status.
Mine as Owner/Founder

or the people who live there

Ie, do they get to whine to the mods
"wei si be invadededed Halp us pleeze"

Or
If I say "I allow this invasion to continue" (Or simply say nothing and PM the mods that I think the invasion is Groovy) and give the invaders access to regional control. does my degree of Go ahead over ride the residents?

I love it.

Um...Loop...whether an invasion is legal or not has nothing to do with whether the natives like it or not or whether the founder likes it or not.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can do whatever the heck you like with your region if you're the founder. At least that's how it's been and I didn't hear talk of it changing.

The fate of invasions of a region with an active founder are completely determined by said founder, right?

The fate of invasions of a region with an active founder are completely determined by said founder, right?

Only in regards to passwords and regional bans. A Founder can't ask the Mods to delete a bunch of legal invaders. (Well, actually, a Founder could ask, but we'd just say "No". :lol: )

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

I didnt ask anything about Legality of invasion, I asked if My word as founder over rode the word of any residents* of the region.

So would it be My perogative to say, "Sorry Residents, you will have to fight them off on your own."

*Note only one region I own has natives the rest, only residents, I do not grant nativity to anyone, except in that one region.

Loop, the Founder does not have a say in what nations are natives and what nations arent. When have we ever allowed the Founder to have a say in when a rule applies or doesnt?

I like the recommended rules, with the exception of the "system update" language; it's confusing. Simply say that ban lists must be cleared and passwords given within 24 hours of the new delegate being appointed. It makes the rules simple for the raiders to understand.

As a member of DEN, I have encountered this problem during several raids. We had a recent mission in A Liberal Haven where our appointed Delegate was deleted for failing to removal the single nation he ejected from the ban list following the raid. This was despite the fact that the old delegate had received an immediate invitation to return, and without any warning to our delegate. As a result, we lost the region to "defenders" from the ADN and RRA. I have to confess that neither I, our founder (Gen Collin Powell) or any member of DEN had ever heard of a single ejection constituting a "griefing."

I point this out not as a complaint, but only to show how vaguely-interpreted rules are subject to being applied inconsistently by the moderators. Clear language should lessen this problem prospectively.

Here's my opinion. Before going through the entire thing in detail, first some general remarks:

The proposed rules undermine the principle of natives being allowed to return to their home region unhindered. Basically, the natives are worse off now. I don't like that for several reasons: most players don't play invasion / defense at all and really shouldn't be burdened; invaders rarely have something to fear from the natives. It's a part of reasonable target selection to know you can at least defeat the natives.

The way I see most invasions coming down these days is:
1- invaders move into target region
2- defenders MAY jump in, and if defenders win invaders get kicked out
3- if invaders succeed (generally when defenders do not jump in), they passlock the region
4- if invaders violate the rules, they lose control of the region
5- a liberation of a passlocked region is rarely attempted by defenders

Item 5 is important. Most defender / invader battles are nowadays straightforward number games, and defenders tend to win that one (for now). The ADN will rarely try a liberation (which is overtaking a region when invaders are already in charge). The GLA used to do more of them, but much less so these days.

The major changes in the rules address the issue of what happens when invaders are already in control of a region. At that point, as I see it, the invaders have already won. All they need to do then is stick by the rules. This new ruleset seems to me to an attempt to cater more to rulebreaking invaders (to unburden the mods) by making the rules on them less strict (which harms the natives, not the defenders). What makes one so sure that the rulebreaking invaders won't simply break these rules as well? It'll just be a little later on in the invasion. The rules I see broken most often are basic ones: not unbanning natives, or failing to send out the password to natives.

Perhaps the main difference of viewpoint is this: I believe rulebreakers break the rules for one of three reasons:
- they don't care about the rules, they just want to do stuff they find entertaining for themselves. No matter what ruleset you apply, these will be and remain a problem.
- they don't know the rules. Here's where education comes in. It might be useful to inform rulebreaking invaders of their error, point them to a clear ruleset (which doesn't really exist, IMHO), and allow them to correct their mistakes and proceed with normal gameplay.
- they do not fully understand the rules. Here's where simplification of the rules are very helpful. Admittedly, how difficult is it to understand "TM the password to all natives immediately" ?

So, while I see the need for a sticky with a clear ruleset (which should IMHO take the place of the current Invasion / Delegate FAQ), I see no need for these particular changes. A lot could also be achieved by a different poilicy in moderation: sometimes player education instead of punishment. See for detailed comments below.

Rule of thumb definition of a native:
Someone in the region before your invading group arrived that is not a confirmed part of another invading group ('defenders', other invasion groups, etc). Note that 'spies' planted in a region do not count as natives. (Then again, a good spy does not get caught as such.)

- What does 'confirmed' mean here? Confirmed by whom? How certain does this have to be? I'd stick to merely stating "who is not part of", and leaving the problem of knowing who's who entirely to the combatents. Keep in mind that each side will try to look and act like a native to fool the other side. I don't think it is fair to the natives to become victim of this purposeful confusion.

Regarding ejecting and/or banning people in a captured region:
-Non-natives may be kicked and banned.
-Natives may NOT be banned for longer than ONE system update. (In other words, about 24 hours.)
-An invader delegate may eject a 'small number' of tactical natives to try and maintain power. This number is roughly determined as 10% of the region's population OR 20 people, whichever value is smaller, at any given time. Note that this is not a concrete value- each complaint of griefing must be handled on a case by case basis.

As indicated in my general remarks, I do not see the point of allowing longer banishments. Natives are not the major threat to invader occupancies. If they would be, the invaders shouldn't have picked a target stronger than their own forces.

While I don't have a problem with the numbers mentioned here, I do see a possible enforcement issue concerning counting these over the entire course of the invasion. The regional happenings ticker scrolls along, and who keeps exact count how many natives have hit the RR over a period of days or weeks? Expect to see a bunch of Getting Help request like "a bunch of natives were ejected... can you please check whether this qualifies as a griefing yet?" especially if invaders decide to get really close to the maximum allowed number.

BTW: isn't it "tactically eject" instead of "tactical natives" ? ;)

Regarding password protecting a captured region:
-The password MUST be telegrammed to ALL natives within one system update of the password being set. The invader delegate and his or her group is responsible for ensuring the password is sent out. Passing it out to some of the natives and instructing them to 'pass it on' is not an acceptable excuse in the event of the password not going out.
-The password must be CLEARLY stated when handed out to the natives. If the password has ''s or ""s on the ends, be sure that this fact is clear. Setting the password as a swear word that is filtered by the censor is no excuse, either.
-If a native loses the password (for instance, it accidentally gets flooded out of their TG box), and they request it again, it must be given to them.

The second and third point are excellent. The change in the first I don't see the need for. If enforcement is the problem here (as is indicated in the comments) might it not be equally clear to state that passwords must be distributed PRIOR to the password being set? That's easy for a mod to determine as well, and doesn't inhibit natives.

Also, this rules can have a very bad interaction with the current "password changes once per update" rule. After all, if one is allowed to wait 23 hours to distribute a password... how long after that may one change it again? Right now it reads as if invaders can set a password 12 hours before update, and then TM the password after the update is done... each day? What if the password is dropped again before the 24 hour period is over, should they TM a password no longer in place?

Ballotonia

I like that the new rules give more options to invaders. Its about time! :D

w00t! I love this, it gives more power in the hands of attackers, so now its not just the delegte position for 2 hrs before the founder kicks you out.

w00t! I love this, it gives more power in the hands of attackers, so now its not just the delegte position for 2 hrs before the founder kicks you out.

Um... this ruleset doesn't change a thing about the Founder's power.

i think the new rules are ok - so long as the mods actually follow up on them.

Take for example The Holy Alliace - the delegate booted out over half the region and put in a password. This was days ago and has been reported several times yet the mods have done nothing!!!!!

Rule of thumb definition of a native:
Someone in the region before your invading group arrived that is not a confirmed part of another invading group ('defenders', other invasion groups, etc). Note that 'spies' planted in a region do not count as natives. (Then again, a good spy does not get caught as such.)

Regarding ejecting and/or banning people in a captured region:
-Non-natives may be kicked and banned.
-Natives may NOT be banned for longer than ONE system update. (In other words, about 24 hours.)
-An invader delegate may eject a 'small number' of tactical natives to try and maintain power. This number is roughly determined as 10% of the region's population OR 20 people, whichever value is smaller, at any given time. Note that this is not a concrete value- each complaint of griefing must be handled on a case by case basis.

Regarding password protecting a captured region:
-The password MUST be telegrammed to ALL natives within one system update of the password being set. The invader delegate and his or her group is responsible for ensuring the password is sent out. Passing it out to some of the natives and instructing them to 'pass it on' is not an acceptable excuse in the event of the password not going out.
-The password must be CLEARLY stated when handed out to the natives. If the password has ''s or ""s on the ends, be sure that this fact is clear. Setting the password as a swear word that is filtered by the censor is no excuse, either.
-If a native loses the password (for instance, it accidentally gets flooded out of their TG box), and they request it again, it must be given to them.

Misc. Information:
-An invader who endorses a delegate that then griefs the invaded region is not automatically slated for deletion UNLESS evidence is found that the endorser was aware of the invader delegate's intent. They will be given a warning, however. An invader who accumulates three such warnings will be ejected from the UN.
-Invader delegates who deliberately try to push the envelope/abuse loopholes/flagrantly break these rules will be deleted. Invader delegates who are determined to simply not have been aware will be warned and/or ejected from the UN
-As always, using UN multies, spamming the regional happenings or civil headquarters will be treated as it always has been. Multies get ejected from the UN or deleted; spammers get warned once, deleted on a repeat offense; really bad spammers get deleted ASAP.
-If you are planning an invasion and are uncertain the legality of any particular aspect of your plan, telegram a mod about it first. We will keep such information confidential (in other words, we won't go giving the target region or defender groups any warning that it's coming), and can help ensure that your plan is not in violation of any of the rules.



Questions:

Note that 'spies' planted in a region do not count as natives. (Then again, a good spy does not get caught as such.)

Does this mean that invaders or defenders can not have natives? I don’t think it does, but want to be sure. I have been natives in regions before which were later invaded by other groups, or once co-incidentally the group I run with decided to attack it (only because the delegate- who I believe was defender) ended up being deleted for cheating. I never intended on invading upon entering, but once he cheated we decided to go in. Does this imply I can never have a native, in case a mod might consider it a mod, or is it a case by case situation?

We follow the rules so I am not too concerned about this one, but wanted to clarify:

The invader delegate and his or her group is responsible for ensuring the password is sent out.

Does this imply that the entire invasion group will be punished if the del does not give out password? Again, never been a problem with us, but this would make no sense to me—guilt by association. I can understand wanting to make sure people act as team and tell their peeps to follow the rules, but it would make no sense to punish the entire group for one person cheating. Just wanted to clarify…


An invader who endorses a delegate that then griefs the invaded region is not automatically slated for deletion UNLESS evidence is found that the endorser was aware of the invader delegate's intent. They will be given a warning, however.

This makes no sense to me. I can only hope if invaders will be punished for what other invaders do, that the rules be fair and punish defenders for what others in their group do. We’ve seen a lot of defenders deleted for UN multis, if you are going to install a “guilt-by-association” (GBA) rule, it should apply to all in the game, not just invaders. If you think invaders can control how others in the game play the game, this sort of thinking should be applicable to all in the game.

Thanks for posting these up for discussion, I hope one or two of these points makes sense. Overall, I think these are good rules. The worst problem is simply the GBA rule.

Can I suggest that rather than punishing people for not sending out the password, why don't the mods just change or remove the password? Or do a 3 strikes think like with the endorsing greifers, change/remove/send the password the first two times, then punish the invader for a third offence?

- they don't know the rules. Here's where education comes in. It might be useful to inform rulebreaking invaders of their error, point them to a clear ruleset (which doesn't really exist, IMHO), and allow them to correct their mistakes and proceed with normal gameplay.

---snip---

So, while I see the need for a sticky with a clear ruleset (which should IMHO take the place of the current Invasion / Delegate FAQ), I see no need for these particular changes. A lot could also be achieved by a different poilicy in moderation: sometimes player education instead of punishment. See for detailed comments below.

Furthermore, adding a link to a concise list of invasion rules in the Regional Control page (similar to the link to UN proposal rules in the UN proposal submission page) would help alleviate the rule ignorance issue, or at least limit the excuse of ignorance in a griefing. A sticky would be of limited effectiveness, as many invaders/defenders spend little time on these forums.

Can I suggest that rather than punishing people for not sending out the password, why don't the mods just change or remove the password? Or do a 3 strikes think like with the endorsing greifers, change/remove/send the password the first two times, then punish the invader for a third offence?

At least this makes more sense then warning and eventually deleting players because the people they play with may cheat. If Invaders will be mass deleted, it should be the same for natives and defenders.

At least this makes more sense then warning and eventually deleting players because the people they play with may cheat. If Invaders will be mass deleted, it should be the same for natives and defenders.

"Defenders" are bound by the same rule-set as invaders.

Rule of thumb definition of a native:
Someone in the region before your invading group arrived that is not a confirmed part of another invading group ('defenders', other invasion groups, etc). Note that 'spies' planted in a region do not count as natives. (Then again, a good spy does not get caught as such.)

I thought a native was a native, no matter whom it belongs to. Then every puppet in an invaded region could be considered a spy, because IMHO every native who wants to be liberated, will give out the password to defenders.

There's also the question who determines which native is a real native, and which one is a spy?
Invaders? Invader-delegates may refuse to send out the password to certain natives, because they say they suspect them of being a spy. This would mean only UN-nations could get the password, because every non-UN-puppet could be a potential spy. So, invading regions without UN-members will become a piece of cake, because there wouldn't be any natives, only potential spies.
Mods? That would mean even more work for them...

Me thinks this rule only leads to more confusion and discussion about who's a native, and who's not, who's whoms puppet... Why even making a difference? Isn't this just making the rules more complicated.


Regarding password protecting a captured region:
-The password MUST be telegrammed to ALL natives within one system update of the password being set. The invader delegate and his or her group is responsible for ensuring the password is sent out. Passing it out to some of the natives and instructing them to 'pass it on' is not an acceptable excuse in the event of the password not going out.
Could you change the italic text in a specific period, this is a bit vague I think. Maybe you could ad "telegram me for the pass" isn't acceptable either...

I'll think a while about the rest of the rules..

Ok, in response to the...responses...to this thread, a few of the Mods (all who were online at the time) sat down and came up with this draft:


1. Native is defined heretofore as any nation residing in a region at the time of invasion with the exception of those that are there primarily to assist an invasion (spy claus...i.e., spies are not natives). Defenders are considered invaders.

2. Non-UN Natives are not allowed to be ejected, unless for spam/flame/etc.

3. A limit of 20 ejections of UN Natives per invasion.

4. A 12 hr ban limit for UN Natives

5. The password must be distributed to every native prior to it being set. The delegate may change the password as often as he/she likes, as long as it is performed in this manner - telegrams containing mass password lists are allowed as long as they specify what time each password will be in use.

6. Any action not addressed here is subject to Moderator discretion.

^ Those above revisions made are very discouraging as they are reverting back to the unfair invasion rules of the game. Once again, the rules state natives must be unbanned within a system update (12 hrs) which pretty much foils an invaders efforts against any determined natives.
And I dont understand why you want to ban the ejection of non-un natives!! Those natives could be puppets of ejected UN nations..so why should they be given immunity from invaders?

Those revisions basically make it as hard as it is now for invaders...So what the heck is the point of these new rules then?????
Obviously there is still way to much bias here and few are willing to make nesessary reforms.


Theres a couple factors that I think should be changed in the original draft.

Invaders should be allowed to eject up to 10% population for 24 hours one time only. Afterwards, they should be allowed to continue ejecting nations that return, but with the requirement that they immediatly be unbanned. That way natives cant gain "immunity" once they have been ejected one time for 24 hrs.

And I dont understand why you want to ban the ejection of non-un natives!! Those natives could be puppets of ejected UN nations..so why should they be given immunity from invaders?

Erm, perhaps because there is no good reason to?

^ Those above revisions made are very discouraging as they are reverting back to the unfair invasion rules of the game. Once again, the rules state natives must be unbanned within a system update (12 hrs) which pretty much foils an invaders efforts against any determined natives.
And I dont understand why you want to ban the ejection of non-un natives!! Those natives could be puppets of ejected UN nations..so why should they be given immunity from invaders?

Those revisions basically make it as hard as it is now for invaders...So what the heck is the point of these new rules then?????
Obviously there is still way to much bias here and few are willing to make nesessary reforms.


Theres a couple factors that I think should be changed in the original draft.

Invaders should be allowed to eject up to 10% population for 24 hours one time only. Afterwards, they should be allowed to continue ejecting nations that return, but with the requirement that they immediatly be unbanned. That way natives cant gain "immunity" once they have been ejected one time for 24 hrs.

Actually, the revisions are quite lenient.

12 hrs is plenty of time to keep a nation banned through the major update - when the delegate change happens. There is no other reason to ban a nation (besides flaming/spam/etc, but that's different rules).

Non-UN natives will not be allowed to be ejected, you can count on that. Non-UN natives have NOTHING to do with how successful an invasion is. In the interests of invasions being less permanently destructive to a region, Non-UN natives will not be allowed to be ejected - this is one that will not change.

No one ever said a Native could be banned only one time - rather, it was stated that a Native may only remain on the ban-list for a maximum of 12 hrs at a time. The only rule that would grant immunity is the max of 20 ejections per invasion - which causes invasions to be less than permanent for determined natives, once again, this returns to the destructive bit.


I'd like to add that Mass Ejections will remain illegal, of course.

wrong nation

rather, it was stated that a Native may only remain on the ban-list for a maximum of 12 hrs at a time. The only rule that would grant immunity is the max of 20 ejections per invasion - which causes invasions to be less than permanent for determined natives, once again, this returns to the destructive bit.

That is actually what I meant, that once the 20 ejections are up..invaders are done. Thus they should be allowed to maintain a "10% ejection rate" with the requirement that natives be immediatly unbanned. (After the 10% 24hr ejection period)

Also..why is it you think determined natives should receive additional help in getting their region back? If they are so determined to get back their region.. then they can find a way by themselves, rather than gain an additional advantage from mods against invaders. :roll:

Anyhoo.. Its been an entire day and it looks like I'm the only one who objects. If invaders arent willing to take advantage of this opportunity to voice change on the draft then I guess little change will result other than the existing rules being more defined. Perhaps theres no invaders in nationstates anymore.

Anyhoo.. Its been an entire day and it looks like I'm the only one who objects. If invaders arent willing to take advantage of this opportunity to voice change on the draft then I guess little change will result other than the existing rules being more defined. Perhaps theres no invaders in nationstates anymore.

We're still here, we're just not allowed to do anything anymore. Little is gonna change here. The rules are gonna remain totally stacked against invasions no matter what we say here.

Anyhoo.. Its been an entire day and it looks like I'm the only one who objects. If invaders arent willing to take advantage of this opportunity to voice change on the draft then I guess little change will result other than the existing rules being more defined. Perhaps theres no invaders in nationstates anymore.

We're still here, we're just not allowed to do anything anymore. Little is gonna change here. The rules are gonna remain totally stacked against invasions no matter what we say here.

Actually, Nothingg, every mod involved in this (and the modling as well) is reading this thread very carefully and listening to all of the posts. We cannot build good rules unless we get good input back from you all. We are listening, even when we aren't always posting.

Please, have a bit more faith in us than that.

http://www.weirdozone.0catch.com/projects/nationstates/salusasecondus/salusasecondus2.jpg
SalusaSecondus
Tech Modling

Non-UN natives will not be allowed to be ejected, you can count on that. Non-UN natives have NOTHING to do with how successful an invasion is. In the interests of invasions being less permanently destructive to a region, Non-UN natives will not be allowed to be ejected - this is one that will not change.

Invasions should be allowed to extend beyone the purpose of the UN.
Non UN nations have A LOT to do with the success of an invasion.

Many active nations in NS are non-UN and many would assist the UN nations. Invaders should be allowed to eject them as well.

also,
What if some overlord of a region happens to be non UN. (my arch nemesis is non-UN and has commanded the control of a large region)

And what if I want to invade this persons region to remove them for 24 hrs as a means of revenge... whats wrong with that?? This is nationstates, with war and polotics!.

With these new rules.. I cannot even bring wrath upon my arch nemesis. That stinks!

If this new rule is allowed to go forward...then I would prefer the existing rules. (which are currently unfair)


Please, have a bit more faith in us than that.
Well, if the rules remain essentially unchanged/worse... I sure hope they dont. Im glad you guys are at least listening.

I like neut's redraft.

I am though, not sure on the not ejecting non-un nations thing, seems a little harsh on invaders and sort of meaningless either way.

I prefer the idea of just ignoring the existence of defenders and saying all nations entering a region during or after an invasion are non-native. I am a defender so have an interest to declare, but I don't think there is any need to even mention defenders (I'm thinking of the same principle English law applies to lesbianism-pretend it doesn't exist).

That said even with my whining, add in some of Rep's detail and I think Neut (and the other mods who drafted it) have it.

Where are all the invaders???

The banning of non-UN nations needs to be re-introduced.
Think of it as suppression of the press. The Regional Message Board, during an invasion, takes on a new importance.
Natives, Invaders and Defenders use it as a rallying gorund and ideological battle place. Natives especially use it to rally others to their help.
Given all this it cant be ruled that invasions are strictly UN oriented. Some of the players on the stage will be non-UN.

I'll have more later, only read the thirs page and a bit of the first so far.

Ok, guys/gals, before you get too entrenched about the non-UN native ejections being banned, let me explain something:

That rule will not be taken back. Period.

There is NO tactical advantage to be gained by removing those nations from an invaded region. None, whatsoever. Claims that they're presence on the regional board garners them more strength is somewhat skewed - could they not just as easily garner support from whatever other region they are in while banned? Point is, regardless of what region they're in, they can use the regional board to get help, rally the troops, etc.

Nothingg, lets look at this:

Invaders - not all cause problems, but the majority of game issues are concerning griefing invasions. Therefore, it only makes sense to create rules that limit the amount of griefing that can occur.

Natives - might cause problems, but I've never heard of Natives griefing the invaders of their region - short of flaming/etc.

There are far more Natives that want nothing to do with invasions then there are invaders.

We have to create rules that limit the inherent destructiveness of invasions because there are people out there who exploit this attribute in order to abuse other people.

Invaders - not all cause problems, but the majority of game issues are concerning griefing invasions. Therefore, it only makes sense to create rules that limit the amount of griefing that can occur.

Or...it only makes sence to loosen the law so it is not broken so often. If a certain law is constantly being violated..then one could argue that the law is not liked or considered valid by the population, and should therefor be abolished.

If the current law is made official, you will see far more violations because of ejections of "non-UN nations"


There is NO tactical advantage to be gained by removing those nations from an invaded region

I disagree. Obviously an invader will eject the most active/militant nations from the region first. If this active/militant nation has a non-UN puppet in the region..then this active/militant nation can get the password easier to rally others against the invaders.


Ok, guys/gals, before you get too entrenched about the non-UN native ejections being banned, let me explain something:

That rule will not be taken back. Period.

So in other words, by removing major issues of discussion, we are being dictated what we can and cant argue about, which means the big items we want change on will not be made.

Your(the mods who agree with the revision) opinions/biases are not necessairly more right/better than ours. Thus it is unfair for you to take the big topics we want change from off the table.
Why not allow more debate?

Sorry if it looks like you are getting conflicting messages out here (well, you are), but due to various RL concerns we're also getting some crossed lines of communication back here with this.

Non-UN nations are not directly involved in invasions, and thus we do not see why we should permit them to be ejected (unless they are flaming, spamming, or non-native), BUT we are not invaders (or defenders) and thus may be missing a crucial point.

We are still listening to your points and your input on all aspects of the proposed ruleset.

I just want to remind everybody that the poll is not representative of the revisions that were made back in the 3rd page of the thread, but of the original draft version posted on the first page.

I'de suggest creating a new poll for these sudden revisions.

At least this makes more sense then warning and eventually deleting players because the people they play with may cheat. If Invaders will be mass deleted, it should be the same for natives and defenders.

"Defenders" are bound by the same rule-set as invaders.


I perfectly understand this, and I think this is black-and-white with most groups. I think a lot of people know of cheats, so I understand this. I hope that you can understand my trepidation with such a rule, considering that our group has been involved in some odd game issues. I think this is an overall okay rule, I just never trust 3 Strikes and Your Out Laws, or whatever it is they are called in real-life.





1. Native is defined heretofore as any nation residing in a region at the time of invasion with the exception of those that are there primarily to assist an invasion (spy claus...i.e., spies are not natives). Defenders are considered invaders.

I think this is a good rule. I would only ask that moderators have to have evidence and not just inclinations when suspecting a spy Vs a native. I have native nations in many regions who have nothing to with Ackbar, and I don’t think it is a good blanket statement to make that invaders nations are all considered spies. You guys aren’t saying this, I am simply ask. Guess if I am asking, it should end in an “?.” I think this is a great rule, but do you think invaders can have non-spy nations in regions throughout the game, or do you judge all nations invaders because one of them is?



2. Non-UN Natives are not allowed to be ejected, unless for spam/flame/etc.


I don’t like this rule, but I don’t forsee I will have a problem with this one practically.


A limit of 20 ejections of UN Natives per invasion.


So if natives don’t want to ever lose an invasion, all they have to do is create 4 – 5 non-un nations each. If they are ever invaded, each person may merely grant these non-un nations UN status one by one. Eventually the invaders will be beaten not because of strategy, but because this breaks the issue down to a numbers game.



4. A 12 hr ban limit for UN Natives



Very fair. Thank you.


5. The password must be distributed to every native prior to it being set. The delegate may change the password as often as he/she likes, as long as it is performed in this manner - telegrams containing mass password lists are allowed as long as they specify what time each password will be in use.


This one is a hard one on invaders, it is certainly to our disadvantage. But I think, if it isn’t fair, it is close to it. Unless someone offers a great objection, this seems fair. I’ll have to think about it, it is an interesting rule if nothing else.



Actually, the revisions are quite lenient.

Non-UN natives have NOTHING to do with how successful an invasion is.


Non-UN natives can become UN Natives within 2 –3 days.



We're still here, we're just not allowed to do anything anymore. Little is gonna change here. The rules are gonna remain totally stacked against invasions no matter what we say here.


I think you are right and wrong. The rules will always be stacked against us (as they should be) but I think by talking, we have influenced the rules to be less anti-invader then they initially seemed. I think natives should get the upper hand, tho the current rules are less then always logical towards invaders I feel. That said, the new rules are mostly okay, and I think that should be acknowledged.



I prefer the idea of just ignoring the existence of defenders and saying all nations entering a region during or after an invasion are non-native. I am a defender so have an interest to declare, but I don't think there is any need to even mention defenders (I'm thinking of the same principle English law applies to lesbianism-pretend it doesn't exist).


I think natives get the good rules, and non-natives get the stacked rules is absolutely fair I think. As an invader, we oddly agree on that being better wording perhaps.


We have to create rules that limit the inherent destructiveness of invasions because there are people out there who exploit this attribute in order to abuse other people.


Only Neutered, I think that I am getting bored and need to be refreshed, this isn’t any honest challenge to you, simply quite possibly an exercise in fun. Care to open a thread in the GamePlay thread attempting to debate, discuss, and dissect whether invasions are inherently destructive. I love a good debate, so if you are cool with it (I don’t know what admin rules are, or how married life is occupying your time (I think you got married didn’t you. If you did, congrats to you and good luck. If not, the same.)




Non-UN nations are not directly involved in invasions, and thus we do not see why we should permit them to be ejected (unless they are flaming, spamming, or non-native), BUT we are not invaders (or defenders) and thus may be missing a crucial point.

We are still listening to your points and your input on all aspects of the proposed ruleset.

A) Thanks for wanting an open discussion, I think is one of the best opportunities invaders have ever had to bend ears where rule-making is occurring.

2) Sorry, I might not comment on this forum daily, but I, and other invaders, are reading these comments and points. Thanks, mod for taking the time to discuss these issues first.


~Ack

There is NO tactical advantage to be gained by removing those nations from an invaded region

I disagree. Obviously an invader will eject the most active/militant nations from the region first. If this active/militant nation has a non-UN puppet in the region..then this active/militant nation can get the password easier to rally others against the invaders.

All natives must be provided with the password anyway, so whether a non-UN native is inside or outside the region doesn't really matter in that sense.

However, I can see a practical point in ejecting a native non-UN nation, but it's purely political in nature. Example: when I invaded Atlantic, I ejected the nation MrNonchallant, the leader of the ACC/AA which is the organization we were actually targetting (region Atlantic was their home base). MrNonchallant is a non-UN nation. Admittedly, the entire operation could've been done without that ejection, but IMHO it did add to the symbolic value of that invasion. I don't feel like I 'griefed' MrNonchallant, nor the region. Similar examples are possible for invasions of non-invader regions, in the case that they are not aimed at a random sleepy region but are targetting an ideological enemy.

I have native nations in many regions who have nothing to with Ackbar, and I don’t think it is a good blanket statement to make that invaders nations are all considered spies.

True, but I wouldn't want to make the opposite a blanket rule either. It will vary. Myself, I have a lot of puppets. Some are in invasion-prone regions and these nations serve no other gameplay purpose than obtaining a password in case the region is invaded. So it's quite fair to regard these nations to be 'defender spies' and eject them. If you can figure out beyond a reasonable doubt that they are indeed my spy nations ;) On the other hand, I also have non-UN nations who are active participants in the regions they are in (like, member of the regional government). It would seem appropriate to me that these nations do have native status in the event the region gets invaded.

I realize these situations would mean more work for mods, and it just might be impossible for the mods to distinguish between them. If so, and one blanket rule would have to be chosen over the other, I'd pick regarding all non-UN (non-founder) nations belonging to invaders / defenders as non-native, over them all being regarded native. Fortunately, one can still RP in a region with a founder and never be adversely affected by the difference.


As far as the rules being stacked against invaders: This is only so in comparison to the natives, which ends up translating into an advantage for defenders since they take the native's side and hence get the native's cooperation. The main issue there being a possible password. I'll think along with the invaders in figuring out how a better balance between invaders and defenders can be achieved, but I'll need to know a few things from the invaders to better understand the situation for their perspective:
- What are you trying to achieve with the invasions you undertake?
- How and why do you think these invasions currently fail for you?

Ballotonia

2. Non-UN Natives are not allowed to be ejected, unless for spam/flame/etc.
This seems ridiculous, for reasons that have already been mentioned. I understand the intent of the rule, but in practice, a non-UN nation is hardly "harmless" and Ackbar has already explained how this can be used to subvert the intent of Rule #3.

A limit of 20 ejections of UN Natives per invasion.
What is the rationale behind setting an arbitrary limit? A percentage-based system certainly makes more sense to me, but if there's a reasonable explanation, I'm willing to listen to it.

A 12 hr ban limit for UN Natives.
Thank you for this rare compromise.

The password must be distributed to every native prior to it being set.
I'd also like to know the rationale behind all this password stuff. As I understand it, the intent is to ensure that a native can always return home. I don't really think this reasonable within the construct of an "invasion", but I am fairly certain you guys are never going to change your minds about this, so I'm willing to accept that as a given, under protest.

But we all know what we're really talking about here is defender access to regions. All of these hoops you're making people jump through don't address the issue of your support (intentional or otherwise) for allowing defenders access to any region, 24/7.

Now that I think about it, I guess this is actually your intent, since a native still in the region has no personal use for a region's password. Making an invader fight the spamblocker for hours just to send out a password seems like cruel and unusual punishment for being victorious in an invasion.

Things like this are why invaders believe the mods are unfairly biased. I think some mods try their best to remain open to all points of view, but there is a fundamental bias towards defenders that I believe even those who believe they are being objective are taking for granted.

Any action not addressed here is subject to Moderator discretion.
This, of course, has always been the way, but it certainly does make me chuckle.

"You may follow all the rules, but we'll delete you anyway if we don't like what we see, even if we later rule your behavior to be legal."

This is certainly one area that needs drastic improvement. All of these rules (and discussion regarding them) is irrelevant as long as things continue to be run in this manner.

Have you discussed my proposal to allow invaders to plead their case before you terminate an invasion (unless they have broken some other obvious non-invasion-related rule)?

I think part of the reason you're not seeing more of a response from invaders is that it seems perfectly clear to us that you will do everything in your power to make invasions possible only in the abstract sense to appease Max. I still retain some small amount of hope that you are willing to listen, but certainly this thread has done nothing to make me believe that there will ever be any sort of fairness.

And on top of all this...if we wanted to cheat and grief, we could do it with impunity for as long as we liked. This happens on a daily basis. Multis are constantly illegally invading and griefing regions, and nothing is done. The nations are batch-deleted a week after they're reported and then they come back in new clothes next week, with another week's worth of impunity before they are again deleted.

These guys are the real problem, and though I understand the clerical nightmare of dealing with them, I really believe that much more should be done to deal with these people than with the sort of people who will participate in a thread about new rules.

Frankly, any invader who even makes the attempt to stay within your obviously biased and constantly changing rules deserves much more respect than you are willing to give them, and you reward them by illegally terminating their invasions.

As many times as you claim to be fair, there is still an undeniable bias against invasions and invaders. It's evident in the way you phrase things, in the unconscious manner in which the words "invader" and "griefer" are often used interchangeably, and in these new proposed rules which are more obviously designed to favor defenders (ie, mod-supported invasion activity).

I didn't really mean to go off on a rant like that, but it seems to me that your intent is merely to drive off all legal invaders (ie, ones who will intellectually challenge you on the forum) so you can live in a comfortable world where mods and defenders have tea each afternoon and talk about how awful all those rule-breaking invaders are.

OK, how about this.

I ask the mods to consider the rules above, and then imagine themselves as an invader delegate who would occasionally like to get some sleep.

Can you think of a manner in which you can expect to defend your conquest that does not rely solely on the incompetence of the natives of the region you've invaded?

This is within the context of the game as it stands now (ie, defenders exist and are required by the rules to have basically unfettered access to the password).

I think if you look at the issue this way, you will see why invaders feel like they are being treated unfairly, and hopefully we can come to some compromise that grants the natives all the rights you want them to have, yet prevents skewing the game so completely towards the defenders.

Beachcomber, the intent behind the password rule was to keep regions from dying when invaded. I understand your concern about defenders, and believe me, I am not pro-defender. I am pro-native and pro-invasion with limits to the destructiveness therein.

12 hrs is plenty enough time to make strategic ejections prior to the update and still have time to sleep. Besides, I find it amusing that you would argue that invaders shouldnt have to stay up all night to defend the region they've invaded, while implying that natives must do so to retake their region...

In response to Ackbar's point concerning non-UN native ejections, remember, you are given 20 ejections. How you use those is at your discretion. In the scenario you presented, it would be somewhat pointless for the native to move UN status around. Ultimately, he/she would still only have 1 UN nation in the region at any given time - any more is cheating. The name of the nation is insignificant. This rule protects the region from unneccessary ejections - any native you eject could concieveably create a new nation to circumvent the 12 hr ban causing you to either waste another ejection or simply deal with his/her presence.

As to the 20 ejection limit. I feel this is more lenient than what had first been proposed. The original limit was 10% of the regional population at time of invasion or 20, whichever was fewer. Meaning to be allowed 20 ejections, you would have to invade a region of over 200 natives. In all honesty, we see no reason for an invasion to need more than 20 ejections - keeping in mind that all invasions are temporary.


Now, perhaps if there is a grudge match between an invader/defender group and another invader/defender group, certain rules could be waived - if proposed to and approved by the Mod team in advance. Just a thought.


And, yes, Ackbar, I'm married. Thanks. I'd be more than willing to debate this issue with you as long as it stays a discussion between yourself and I.

However, I can see a practical point in ejecting a native non-UN nation, but it's purely political in nature. Example: when I invaded Atlantic, I ejected the nation MrNonchallant, the leader of the ACC/AA which is the organization we were actually targetting (region Atlantic was their home base). MrNonchallant is a non-UN nation. Admittedly, the entire operation could've been done without that ejection, but IMHO it did add to the symbolic value of that invasion. I don't feel like I 'griefed' MrNonchallant, nor the region. Similar examples are possible for invasions of non-invader regions, in the case that they are not aimed at a random sleepy region but are targetting an ideological enemy.

This is a very good point. A major reason why an invader will eject a few non-UN natives are for political reasons. That is also the biggest reason why I want to have this. My arch enemy is against the UN..thus how can i exact any kind of direct revenge on this nation? The political supporters of a regime (many of whome are non-UN, and very prominant in the region) should be allowed to be ejected!. It has an important symbolic and political significance. Which is the main reason why invaders invade.

Also..few non-UN natives are ejected by invaders. The UN countries are always the ones to go since they are the largest threat. So why are you making a law that forbids it?

I can understand that you are doing this to prevent the griefing of a region, but invaders are not griefers. Forbiding invaders to eject non-un nations will do nothing to prevent the griefing problem. Your law is directed at the wrong people.

A griefer usually knows they are breaking the rules. Creating a new law against invaders will not stop griefers from breaking the rules!

Please reconsider!

Beachcomber, the intent behind the password rule was to keep regions from dying when invaded. I understand your concern about defenders, and believe me, I am not pro-defender.
The net result of these rules, however, is to allow defenders to counter-invade at their leisure. Invaders aren't typically granted the benefit of a password when they choose a target to invade, so it hardly seems fair that a group of defenders should have this tool at their disposal at all times.

I don't know how this would work, but a reasonable compromise might be allowing for others involved in an invasion to have the ability to eject invaders, so delegate responsibilities could be shared. Probably not technically feasible, but my point is that defenders can invade on the night of their choosing, and any number of people can choose to take part. The whole operation doesn't fall down if one guy decides to go out drinking Saturday night.

12 hrs is plenty enough time to make strategic ejections prior to the update and still have time to sleep.
This does nothing to deal with the defenders who bum rush regions each night.

...I find it amusing that you would argue that invaders shouldnt have to stay up all night to defend the region they've invaded, while implying that natives must do so to retake their region...
Natives only have to do this once, at a time of their choosing. An invader must be vigilant every night.

In response to Ackbar's point concerning non-UN native ejections, remember, you are given 20 ejections.
Just to be clear, that's 20 UN native ejections, right? An infinite number of counter-invaders can still be ejected, correct?

In the scenario you presented, it would be somewhat pointless for the native to move UN status around.
So, the ruling is that it's 20 nations who are in the UN at any given time? Are you going to be that precise before deleting a delegate? Because it doesn't matter if the delegate is doing the bookkeeping if the mods aren't.

This rule protects the region from unneccessary ejections - any native you eject could concieveably create a new nation to circumvent the 12 hr ban causing you to either waste another ejection or simply deal with his/her presence.
Wouldn't that new nation be a non-native who could be ejected without it counting against the 20 max?

As to the 20 ejection limit. I feel this is more lenient than what had first been proposed. The original limit was 10% of the regional population at time of invasion or 20, whichever was fewer.
So, wait, you're saying if it's a region of 5 UN nations, I could move in and boot all 5? That doesn't sound like what you mean.

Meaning to be allowed 20 ejections, you would have to invade a region of over 200 natives. In all honesty, we see no reason for an invasion to need more than 20 ejections...
What if the region has over 200 natives? Is that a special case, and if so, how would we know?

Now, perhaps if there is a grudge match between an invader/defender group and another invader/defender group, certain rules could be waived - if proposed to and approved by the Mod team in advance.
Why not just set up the rules properly in the first place, instead of making them up as you go along? You can't be accused of (personal) bias if the rules are the same for everyone.

A griefer usually knows they are breaking the rules. Creating a new law against invaders will not stop griefers from breaking the rules!
This is an excellent point. It seems that all this fussing over technicalities is not going to solve the real problem, which is griefing. Successful invaders should not be a "problem". Given the small number of invaders who both pay attention to the rules and try to follow them, this really seems like a wasted effort, especially since even if we do follow all these rules, there's no guarantee that our invasion isn't going to be terminated by a mod for inexplicable reasons.

12 hrs is plenty enough time to make strategic ejections prior to the update and still have time to sleep.
This does nothing to deal with the defenders who bum rush regions each night.

...I find it amusing that you would argue that invaders shouldnt have to stay up all night to defend the region they've invaded, while implying that natives must do so to retake their region...
Natives only have to do this once, at a time of their choosing. An invader must be vigilant every night.
So, natives that want to keep their regions invasion free dont have to worry about stayin up every night to halt that invasion launched right before the update?
In response to Ackbar's point concerning non-UN native ejections, remember, you are given 20 ejections.
Just to be clear, that's 20 UN native ejections, right? An infinite number of counter-invaders can still be ejected, correct?Yes.

In the scenario you presented, it would be somewhat pointless for the native to move UN status around.
So, the ruling is that it's 20 nations who are in the UN at any given time? Are you going to be that precise before deleting a delegate? Because it doesn't matter if the delegate is doing the bookkeeping if the mods aren't.It's not 20 at any given time - it's 20 since the invasion began. And yes, if you eject the same nation twice it counts as two ejections.

This rule protects the region from unneccessary ejections - any native you eject could concieveably create a new nation to circumvent the 12 hr ban causing you to either waste another ejection or simply deal with his/her presence.
Wouldn't that new nation be a non-native who could be ejected without it counting against the 20 max?Got me there. Regardless of which nation has the UN status, there would still only be 20 UN ejections allowed - in other words, whether joe blow is using Nation A or Nation B wouldnt matter because it's still only ONE UN nation.

[/quote]As to the 20 ejection limit. I feel this is more lenient than what had first been proposed. The original limit was 10% of the regional population at time of invasion or 20, whichever was fewer.
So, wait, you're saying if it's a region of 5 UN nations, I could move in and boot all 5? That doesn't sound like what you mean.[/quote]I apologize, I didnt include that mass-ejections were still against the rules. Ejecting all 5 nations of a 5 nation region would count as griefing. This one we're not putting an exact number or percentage on simply because we feel the grey area is necessary.

Meaning to be allowed 20 ejections, you would have to invade a region of over 200 natives. In all honesty, we see no reason for an invasion to need more than 20 ejections...
What if the region has over 200 natives? Is that a special case, and if so, how would we know?That was an example, not a rule. If a region has over 200 nations, you would still only be allowed 20 ejections - both with what I posted and what Reploid posted. I honestly dont see what you're trying to do here - as I said, what I posted is far more lenient than what Rep posted, and yet you argue with me...kinda leaves the impression that you're arguing it just for the sake of arguing it.


Now, perhaps if there is a grudge match between an invader/defender group and another invader/defender group, certain rules could be waived - if proposed to and approved by the Mod team in advance.
Why not just set up the rules properly in the first place, instead of making them up as you go along? You can't be accused of (personal) bias if the rules are the same for everyone.Both sides would have to agree to the terms beforehand. Now, I know, that 'ruins the element of surprise.' But...in reality, maybe it doesnt. Who's to say you dont get the terms agreed to, sit on them for a month or so, wait for the buzz to die down and then attack? The point of this, once again, was to grant some form of leniency to invader vs invader battles. If you'd like, we could simply make everyone adhere to the same rules all the time rather than allow special circumstances...

A griefer usually knows they are breaking the rules. Creating a new law against invaders will not stop griefers from breaking the rules!
This is an excellent point. It seems that all this fussing over technicalities is not going to solve the real problem, which is griefing. Successful invaders should not be a "problem". Given the small number of invaders who both pay attention to the rules and try to follow them, this really seems like a wasted effort, especially since even if we do follow all these rules, there's no guarantee that our invasion isn't going to be terminated by a mod for inexplicable reasons.What you fail to acknowledge is that if we dont set the rules that, say, mass griefing, is against the rules, those griefers wouldnt be breaking the rules, would they? Without having the rules, there wouldnt be griefers/rule-breakers. Just like if it wasnt against the law, muderers wouldn't be sitting on death row - even if we all agree it's bad to murder someone, without those laws nothing could be done to the murderers.

Being new to raiding and to this forum in general (damn my aol...), I would just like to interject my opinion into this discussion.

The rules are unfairly biased to Defenders, not Natives. As of now, I don't see any way around this, but flagging defenders as "invaders" has no effect, as Defenders most commonly endorse the current delegate.
In the rare event that there is no delegate or UN members, or the current delegate is 27 days overdue, the defenders sometimes elect their own delegate and eject all invaders, sometimes violating the rules set down by this thread. Why is no action taken?

Passwords: The password rule makes it look like you guys want to shut us down for good. In larger regions, it can take days to spread the password effectively (can you imagine trying to grant everybody in 10000 Islands or another large Founded region the password within 12 hours?). It would make more sense for the password to be distributed on a "ask to receive" basis. This allows for many things. "Defender" invaders will no longer be able to "steal" regions from Invaders. Also, in all likelihood, when are natives going to need the password? Why would they leave and come back? To muster defenders. You're saying that we should give up everything simply because the Natives should be allowed to go home???

Another Thing: There should probably be a rule against locking the delegate out of the regional control in regions with a dead founder. For example, if a raiding party made its way into "Test Bed" and took over, added a really long and complex password, then TGed it to everyone and locked the delegate out, would this be considered griefing? From the current rules, I can only draw a resounding NO.

If we can compromise by granting the Native Delegate über powers if their founder is dead, then it should even the table if invaders are allowed to give passwords out on a need-to-know basis, but always to natives.

So, natives that want to keep their regions invasion free dont have to worry about stayin up every night to halt that invasion launched right before the update?
That is correct. You have given them founders, passwords, ejection powers, new rules, and when that doesn't work, you simply terminate the invasion, no questions asked. If a region can't defend itself under those conditions, they are the worst of the worst of NationStates players, but they still have the option of moving to a new a region and regaining all these superpowers. You've already given them the world.

It's not 20 at any given time - it's 20 since the invasion began. And yes, if you eject the same nation twice it counts as two ejections.
So is the intent to ensure that invasions can last a maximum of 20 days?

I'm not trying to be a smartass here, I am just honestly trying to figure out what your motivations are for setting up these rules that seem very arbitrary and mysterious to me.

As to the 20 ejection limit. I feel this is more lenient than what had first been proposed.
Some set percentage of the regional population is good rule of thumb that balances both the desire to prevent regions from being decimated and allows for invader delegate to react to changing conditions. A pre-set 20 ejection limit is an artificial and easily-exploitable loophole for natives.

If a region has over 200 nations, you would still only be allowed 20 ejections - both with what I posted and what Reploid posted.
I think you're going to have to explain to me why a hard limit of 20 ejections should apply whether a region has 1 or 1000 nations. I don't get it, but I am willing to listen.

I honestly dont see what you're trying to do here - as I said, what I posted is far more lenient than what Rep posted, and yet you argue with me...kinda leaves the impression that you're arguing it just for the sake of arguing it.
I do not argue for the sake of arguing, particularly with people who simply terminate conversations when they do not want to answer difficult questions. The only reason I ever come into these forums and take part in these discussions is when you guys decide to change the rules on us again. I do not look forward to these conversations. I would much rather play NationStates than this endless game of Calvinball you've been forcing us to play for over a year. And may I remind you that the mods asked for feedback regarding these rules? If you're not willing to address my issues (a number of which you seem content to ignore), then why put up the charade in the first place?

That said, I am trying to honestly figure out what you are trying to accomplish with these rules.

These rules seem very unfair to me, yet you think that they are fair. Since there is an obvious discrepancy, I'm trying to figure out why you believe what you believe.

Perhaps we should take the mods on a field trip and stage an invasion with them. Maybe this would give you a different perspective.

Both sides would have to agree to the terms beforehand.
OK, now I know you're yanking my chain. :wink:

Now, I know, that 'ruins the element of surprise.' But...in reality, maybe it doesnt.
Yes, and maybe "dog" is really spelled C-A-T.

If you'd like, we could simply make everyone adhere to the same rules all the time rather than allow special circumstances...
I would love nothing more than if you would settle on a fair set of rules and stick to them.

I just don't understand what you're attempting to accomplish with these rules. You know most invasions involve multis that take forever to get deleted. Why focus so much energy on making sure the best players are punished for being good?

I know it doesn't take much effort on my part to sniff out multis...if only the mods used their time to focus on these actual pests and leave legit invaders alone, I think everyone would be having a lot more fun.

What you fail to acknowledge is that if we dont set the rules that, say, mass griefing, is against the rules, those griefers wouldnt be breaking the rules, would they?
This is neither here nor there. These very basic rules do not change. No one is debating these issues. What we object to is your constant tweaking of rules to make sure that invaders can never get a fair shake.

If you'd stick to the basics (and actually enforce them properly) of no spamming, no multis, and no mass ejections, you'd take care of 95% of all the disruptive activity you seek to prevent. It's like you're ignoring the murderers because it's so much easier to make your quota by redefining jaywalking laws to screw with pedestrians who are just trying to get across the street.

I still can't believe there's nothing in the code to prevent a user from posting 10 messages in a row and spamming clean a messageboard. I understand that code changes are very difficult to perform, but surely this is something that everyone can agree would be useful. No matter how difficult it is, time put into a project such as this would make everyone's NS experience a little nicer (except the spammers, I guess). I am certain that the mods have spent many times the man-hours necessary to make that code change deleting obnoxious 12-year old AOLers who insist on spamming messageboards with swear words and such.

It seems to me, however, that oppressing invaders is very popular with the mods, because it doesn't require much hard work and you win points with the majority of players who don't like invaders while only offending a small minority whose opinions you do not value. And, as long as you make the rules sufficiently complex, you can declare anything you like illegal at any time, and still win points with the masses.

I could certainly be misinterpreting the situation, but make no mistake that nearly every invader who has paid attention to this saga feels the same way.

Suggestion: stick to discussing the rules, do not discuss the mods themselves.

If you feel a rule should be altered to make the game more balanced, say how and why.

One argument I feel is getting snowed in by the anti-mod rethoric is this one:

The suggestion has been made to switch to a "per request" handing out of the password. The rationale here is that the current method favors defenders over invaders and that natives rarely use the password to actually move around themselves. This rationale is true, IMHO, and it's a good point to make.

Counter-arguments I can come up with are the delay involved in the proposed question / response mechanism, the possible abuse of this mechanism through the procedure of waiting with responding followed up by changing the password an hour later, and the possible branding of 'defender spy' of anyone who asks for the password.

-----

Invaders usually select a target they know they can take. As such, the natives tend to have smaller numbers and are in a very vulnerable position. The element that changes this relation are the defenders, which rule-wise are really just another group of invaders. Altering the (admittedly uneven) situation between invaders and defenders would require different rules for these groups. Right now the rules are the same for both sides. Please understand that the defenders only have an advantage through their cooperation with natives. It's not a rulebased advantage that favors defenders as a group.

BTW, I'm still curious for the answers to my previous questions:
- What are you trying to achieve with the invasions you undertake?
- How and why do you think these invasions currently fail for you?

Ballotonia

BTW, I'm still curious for the answers to my previous questions:
- What are you trying to achieve with the invasions you undertake?

What does it matter? I am sure you already know the answer. Are you trying to make our reasons look wrong?
Be it to gain "power", "influence", "fear", "might", "fame", "revenge"..or simply, "fun!"
Polotics is not much different in this game is it? They go hand in hand. One of the things nationstates is about, is polotics. Invasions are a product of polotics.



- How and why do you think these invasions currently fail for you?


Kind of an odd question to be asked at this point. Have you not read the posts and complaints that we have made in this thread? Your answers lie there.


This is neither here nor there. These very basic rules do not change. No one is debating these issues. What we object to is your constant tweaking of rules to make sure that invaders can never get a fair shake.

If you'd stick to the basics (and actually enforce them properly) of no spamming, no multis, and no mass ejections, you'd take care of 95% of all the disruptive activity you seek to prevent. It's like you're ignoring the murderers because it's so much easier to make your quota by redefining jaywalking laws to screw with pedestrians who are just trying to get across the street.

I still can't believe there's nothing in the code to prevent a user from posting 10 messages in a row and spamming clean a messageboard. I understand that code changes are very difficult to perform, but surely this is something that everyone can agree would be useful. No matter how difficult it is, time put into a project such as this would make everyone's NS experience a little nicer (except the spammers, I guess). I am certain that the mods have spent many times the man-hours necessary to make that code change deleting obnoxious 12-year old AOLers who insist on spamming messageboards with swear words and such.

It seems to me, however, that oppressing invaders is very popular with the mods, because it doesn't require much hard work and you win points with the majority of players who don't like invaders while only offending a small minority whose opinions you do not value. And, as long as you make the rules sufficiently complex, you can declare anything you like illegal at any time, and still win points with the masses.

I could certainly be misinterpreting the situation, but make no mistake that nearly every invader who has paid attention to this saga feels the same way.

I understand that we shouldnt be discussing the mods, but I couldnt agree more with his comment. I have drawn similar conclusions. The rules we have right now are a result of the biases of the mods, and so it is no wonder that "the mods themselves" are being drawn into this argument. We understand that invaders are a minority, and we are justified in arguing that the rules are far too unfair against us.






About the issue of outlawing the ejection of non-UN natives. I made a post outlining my issues with it, but I was never rebuked by the mods about it.

Can you please explain to me my error in logic in the following post:

A major reason why an invader will eject a few non-UN natives are for political reasons. That is also the biggest reason why I want to have this. My arch enemy is against the UN..thus how can i exact any kind of direct revenge on this nation? The political supporters of a regime (many of whome are non-UN, and very prominant in the region) should be allowed to be ejected!. It has an important symbolic and political significance. Which is the main reason why invaders invade.

Also..few non-UN natives are ejected by invaders. The UN countries are always the ones to go since they are the largest threat. So why are you making a law that forbids it?

I can understand that you are doing this to prevent the griefing of a region, but invaders are not griefers. Forbiding invaders to eject non-un nations will do nothing to prevent the griefing problem. Your law is directed at the wrong people.

A griefer usually knows they are breaking the rules. Creating a new law against invaders will not stop griefers from breaking the rules!

Please reconsider!

Suggestion: stick to discussing the rules, do not discuss the mods themselves.
This is a good point. I just wanted to explain to Neut that my frustration is not some affection I employ to annoy him, it is quite real and quite common among invaders. Every time the rules change, there's a collective eye-roll and we think "Here we go again!".

The suggestion has been made to switch to a "per request" handing out of the password. The rationale here is that the current method favors defenders over invaders and that natives rarely use the password to actually move around themselves.
This is an excellent point, but...

Counter-arguments I can come up with are the delay...
...I don't really know how to get around this.

Suggestions are welcome, though, because this is really a major issue.

It's not a rulebased advantage that favors defenders as a group.
Actually, it is. When a native delegate changes the password, he is not required to tell all the locals about it, and it's very likely that he won't. So, in a typical situation, a native must ask a native delegate for the password.

Also, in practice, an invader who kicks and bans a native permanently is deleted, no questions asked. A defender who does the same thing is given a slap on the wrist, because defenders are presumed innocent and invaders are presumed guilty.

This inequality must end.

There's not only a rule-based advantage, there's an enforcement advantage, which is even more important. None of what we're discussing has any value if it's not going to be enforced properly.

What are you trying to achieve with the invasions you undertake?
What are people trying to achieve when they role-play wars? Obviously they want to win. It's a game.

How and why do you think these invasions currently fail for you?

It has been our experience that other players cannot defeat us. Our biggest problem is mods stepping in and terminating invasions for no reason. The last time, our delegate was deleted by a mod. Later, he was reinstated, but by this time it was obviously too late. At least he got an apology.

Anyway, this is why I keep returning to that topic. It's a sore-spot for us, and really makes all this discussion of the rules a bit silly. Our experience is that no matter how strictly we adhere to the rules, the mods will change the rules to deal with us and tell us about it later.

This is the number one issue for us, so any discussion of rule changes will inevitably lead to the request for clear rules that both players and mods are required to follow.

I'd also like to remind everyone that with all the new tools available (founders, passwords, ejections, etc.) the number of regions available to invade is quite tiny and limited to players who have made mistakes. These regions have already been given a every chance in the world to protect themselves.

This needs to be considered in this context...remember, these are all extra rules, applied on top of all the others, making invasions even more difficult. How far are we going to go to protect the very worst of the worst players?

Wait a second, what I'm gathering from your last post is that it's more of an issue of unfair enforcement than unfair rules (besides the pw rule). That's something that's being worked on. And, to be honest, I feel is my fault. I've not been terribly active in the Mod Centre as of late.

I have seen legal invasions, and I have seen them halted by a Mod because he/she was led on by a native of the region. I've also seen punk kids grief a region for no reason - other than to be a punk. Somewhere in the middle lies the balance, and we're attempting to find it.

Flat out refusal to compromise on the part of the invaders isnt going to help any of us. We offer compromises, you throw them back in our faces saying 'it's not enough because it makes it too challenging for us'.

Everyone wants to win - invaders/defenders, natives. What makes your desire to win more important than theirs?

Natives are granted an advantage because they're the home team. It's only natural to expect them to have a homecourt advantage. That home court advantage naturally carries over to their teammates.

Over all, I think that what's frustrating you invaders most is the inconsistency of the invasion rulings. To this, I offer my apologies for not being more active in ensuring our newest GMs have it all straight when it comes to invasions. This is an issue that will be addressed, but will take time.

I understand that you guys/gals dont want to be restricted, but you have to see the other side. We cant simply say: "well, griefers are gonna break the rules whether you make em or not. So all you're doing is making the legal invaders jump through hoops." That's not an entirely accurate representation. If what the griefers do isnt against the rules, they wouldnt be griefers and we couldnt do anything to stop them.


Cosmo, I did answer your point about non-UN natives. You just didnt read all my posts and apply what I'd told Ackbar and Beachcomber to your post. Remember, spam, flaming, etc are not allowed by any nation on the regional HQ - the natives that do are subject to a different rule-set than this, the ones that say the delegate can kick/ban flamers and spammers (and no, it doesnt count against your max allowed ejections).

Would it be possible, under the new rules, to changed the password overnight and not immediately give it to the natives but very soon the next day?

@Neutered Sputniks
Sorry but.. what does this :

Cosmo, I did answer your point about non-UN natives. You just didnt read all my posts and apply what I'd told Ackbar and Beachcomber to your post. Remember, spam, flaming, etc are not allowed by any nation on the regional HQ - the natives that do are subject to a different rule-set than this, the ones that say the delegate can kick/ban flamers and spammers (and no, it doesnt count against your max allowed ejections).


Have to do with my post about this?:

A major reason why an invader will eject a few non-UN natives are for political reasons. That is also the biggest reason why I want to have this. My arch enemy is against the UN..thus how can i exact any kind of direct revenge on this nation? The political supporters of a regime (many of whome are non-UN, and very prominant in the region) should be allowed to be ejected!. It has an important symbolic and political significance. Which is the main reason why invaders invade.

Also..few non-UN natives are ejected by invaders. The UN countries are always the ones to go since they are the largest threat. So why are you making a law that forbids it?

I can understand that you are doing this to prevent the griefing of a region, but invaders are not griefers. Forbiding invaders to eject non-un nations will do nothing to prevent the griefing problem. Your law is directed at the wrong people.

A griefer usually knows they are breaking the rules. Creating a new law against invaders will not stop griefers from breaking the rules!

Please reconsider!

I mentioned nothing in my post related to:
spam, flaming, etc are not allowed by any nation on the regional HQ - the natives that do are subject to a different rule-set than this, the ones that say the delegate can kick/ban flamers and spammers (and no, it doesnt count against your max allowed ejections)

Rather than deflect my request, can you please defunct all my arguments in that post I made? Please tell me why my logic in that specific post is wrong.

If you'd read my post, yet again, you'd have seen where I redirected you to a prior post I'd made addressing that very argument.

hmm this could potentially make it worth my while to get back into invading :P

my main concerns are:
-no ejecting of non-un nations. i strongly agree with the reasons stated previously regarding the political-ness of such an action. there are times in an invaders life that call for revenge... :twisted:
also, if an invader wants to decrease the strength of their invasion by ejecting non-un nations, shouldn't that be their decision to make?

-password handing out. the spam-filter thing would make that terribly unfun for largish invasions. maybe it could be compulsory to send the password to ejected natives and only upon being asked by other nations.

@ Neutered

If you'd read my post, yet again, you'd have seen where I redirected you to a prior post I'd made addressing that very argument.
"that very argument"

What very argument?? I made 4 arguments pertaining to non-UN nations in that post, and you have not addressed any of them.
I did in fact read your replies toAkbar and Beachcomber and none of them properly address anything in my post. Your replies to them are for separate arguments.

I dont understand why you are refusing to rebuke my post after I have asked you twice to do so.

No where have you addressed the polotical importance of having the freedom to eject non-UN nations.

No where have you addressed the concearn that your new law is addressed to the wrong people.

No where have you aknowledged that Invaders are not Griefers.

No where have you challenged the fact that few non-UN nations are ejected by invaders anyway.

I am simply asking you (3rd time) to address specifically my post:
A major reason why an invader will eject a few non-UN natives are for political reasons. That is also the biggest reason why I want to have this. My arch enemy is against the UN..thus how can i exact any kind of direct revenge on this nation? The political supporters of a regime (many of whome are non-UN, and very prominant in the region) should be allowed to be ejected!. It has an important symbolic and political significance. Which is the main reason why invaders invade.

What is your opinion of this??

Also..few non-UN natives are ejected by invaders. The UN countries are always the ones to go since they are the largest threat. So why are you making a law that forbids it?

What is your opinion of this??

I can understand that you are doing this to prevent the griefing of a region, but invaders are not griefers. Forbiding invaders to eject non-un nations will do nothing to prevent the griefing problem. Your law is directed at the wrong people.

What is your opinion of this?

A griefer usually knows they are breaking the rules. Creating a new law against invaders will not stop griefers from breaking the rules!

Please reconsider!

What is your opinion of this?

Perhaps you're not reading my responses. Because every single thing you've said I have not addressed, I have.

I like these rules. They are simple and to the point. And they are basically a formal statement of Mercian operational procedures anyway, so I doubt any issues are likely to arise as far as my region and allies are concerned, because we have never been interested in bending stuff to the breaking point.

Plus, as I am sure many will agree, it is nice to have a formal reference at last, rather than a set of professional standards established by precedent.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

I like these rules. They are simple and to the point. And they are basically a formal statement of Mercian operational procedures anyway

Very convenient that the antis got to write the invader rules. And to think, some people actually thought the mods would make a sincere attempt at this. :roll:


[The Who]

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[/The Who]

Sigh. As far as I am concerned, there is little difference between invaders and defenders. The various organisations label themselves one or the other, in accordance with their ideology. But ultimately, both do their fair share of both when it suits them. IC in-game, I am a "defender" by association. But in my long time playing the game, I have organised invasions too, and acted as an advisor to invader regions. I have also seen invaders defending regions when it suited them. I have long disliked this pretence that the two camps are discrete entities. They are not. There is overlap everywhere except at the lunatic fringes.

I believe the rules to be fair. I say this as a senior official of a region which does invasions as well as defences, depending on the prevailing political currents. Please, let us have some honesty here. The idea that there is some in-game political elite influencing rule-enforcement is BS. It's a persecution complex. I don't know whether the next external action the Mercian Regions will do will be an invasion or a defence, but these rules really will not hinder them either way.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

That's where we totally disagree. I think there is a huge difference between invaders and antis. That's not the point though.

I just don't see why we need more rules to protect bad players. If they're too inept or just too stupid to protect their region from invasion then they should suffer the consequences. There's already rules against griefing, there's no need to make up more to regulate invasions. The only rule that's necessary is "Whoever has the most endorsements wins". If natives like their region so much, they should do a better job of protecting it. It's as simple as that. And I don't want to hear any of the "I don't like invasions so you shouldn't be able to invade my region" crap either. It's part of the game, deal with it. I don't like paying rent when I play Monopoly, but it's in the rules.

That's where we totally disagree. I think there is a huge difference between invaders and antis. That's not the point though.

I just don't see why we need more rules to protect bad players. If they're too inept or just too stupid to protect their region from invasion then they should suffer the consequences. There's already rules against griefing, there's no need to make up more to regulate invasions. The only rule that's necessary is "Whoever has the most endorsements wins". If natives like their region so much, they should do a better job of protecting it. It's as simple as that. And I don't want to hear any of the "I don't like invasions so you shouldn't be able to invade my region" crap either. It's part of the game, deal with it. I don't like paying rent when I play Monopoly, but it's in the rules.

It's a matter of clarifying and collecting the current rules with a few adjustments. There are no new rules, besides the no non-UN Native ejections rule. In fact, both sets of proposed rules are far more lenient than the current rules.

I like these rules. They are simple and to the point. And they are basically a formal statement of Mercian operational procedures anyway

Very convenient that the antis got to write the invader rules. And to think, some people actually thought the mods would make a sincere attempt at this. :roll:

This would be accurate if Tactical Grace had any input at all in these rules...

Good point. Not my work. I'm just saying they meet with my approval as a player.

It's part of the game, deal with it. I don't like paying rent when I play Monopoly, but it's in the rules.
There's a considerable difference between the two. Paying rent in Monopoly is an inherent feature - it's something that's specified as part of the system right from the start. Invasions in NationStates are an emergent feature - they weren't specified as part of the system right from the beginning, they're something that has arisen from the combination of the initial system (and the modifications that have been made to that system since its creation, such as regional control), and the varied objectives of (groups of) players. In fact, this is much like the process of evolution.

The problem is, without artificial limitations, there is a danger of the emergent features dominating the system and damaging or destroying the accessibility or value of inherent features, and also altering the state of the system (usually for the worse) in the short term. This is also a bit like evolution - eventually we got humans, which are doing a good amount of damage at least to the state of the system (and its behavior too, depending on your point of view). In NationStates, deliberate griefing (such as destroying and refounding regions, banning natives long-term, etc.) is obviously destructive to both the state and inherent features of the system - you end up with angry natives, and a situation where players must be paranoid or constantly alert, or someone might throw them out of their home region.

The problem with invasions is more of a side-effect, fairly similar to the above problem with griefing. Again the core of the problem is the emergent features getting in the way of the inherent features - if you just want to be left alone, invasions aren't something you'd want in the game. Or you might not even know about them - being an emergent feature, they're not an obvious concern from the point of view of a casual player, and information on them tends to be less readily available in the in-game documentation. So a bunch of people in in a small, isolated region aren't going to be happy to wake up one morning to find their delegate thrown out and the region held by a group of people they've never seen before. They'd be even less happy if they were to discover that there are no rules protecting them from from such an invasion. Depending on the type of people they are, they may attempt to retake the region, complain in the forums, discover and use the getting help page, create a new region for themselves, abandon the region and disperse (probably not likely, but not a good result), or they may leave the game (about the worst possible result). It doesn't matter that the invaders don't break rules or intend any permanent harm - at best it interferes with the inherent features of the game for the natives, and at worst perhaps a dozen players vanish for good.

I think the proposed ruleset is actually too lenient on invaders - I reckon there should be a fixed limit on the amount of time they can occupy a region (although the ruleset does effectively guarantee eventual success if they attempt to retake the region). On the other hand, I think that the rules should be relaxed significantly for any home region of invaders (or defenders), but that sort of thing is probably far too complicated to express properly and fairly in any usable ruleset beyond something along the lines of "any region may waive any of these rules with respect to being invaded by any/all other group(s) at one/any point in the future". Although even that would probably have to be horribly complicated to be of any use.

Good point. Not my work. I'm just saying they meet with my approval as a player.

^
|
|
Not a game mod :P

:cry:

Good point. Not my work. I'm just saying they meet with my approval as a player.

^
|
|
Not a game mod :P

<---- notes that TG signed the post in his capacity as MTNG delegate, not as a Forum Mod

On the other hand, I think that the rules should be relaxed significantly for any home region of invaders (or defenders), but that sort of thing is probably far too complicated to express properly and fairly in any usable ruleset beyond something along the lines of "any region may waive any of these rules with respect to being invaded by any/all other group(s) at one/any point in the future". Although even that would probably have to be horribly complicated to be of any use.

That's why I proposed that little bit about grudge matches and that by contacting the Mods beforehand, rules might be relaxed for a single invasion of a single region for grudges or invader vs invader battles.

Apologies in advance for a very long post I should have made much earlier. This is a collection of thoughts about invading: what it is and how we could regulate it. None of this is gospel and I don't mean to speak with any special authority. I think the proposed ruleset is a good one. I'd just like to get down to some fundamentals on the subject.

There is a fine line between griefing and invading; sometimes it's invisible. This is because the point of an invasion is to seize a region because the natives don't want you to; because they want to keep you out. If the natives didn't care, invasions wouldn't be competitive and wouldn't be fun. But griefing is defined as acting with the primary purpose of upsetting other people, which seems to cover this. This is why we have always had trouble distinguishing invaders from griefers.

Regional Control was introduced to deal with more classical forms of griefing. It provided a way for a region to eject a spammer or other idiot without having to wait for intervention from Moderators (or admin). As a side-effect, it made invasions both harder to carry out successfully and more powerful when they succeeded, for now the residents could be not just taunted but actually ejected from their own region. It also provided a way for corrupt Delegates to stay in power, particularly in Founder-less regions, by using ejections as a political tool, rather than an administrative one.

There is no debate over whether Delegates and Founders should be able to use ejections to get rid of people spamming or otherwise breaking the site's rules of etiquette. Likewise, there is no real contention over whether long-serving Delegates or Founders should be able to eject people who threaten their position. This involves using ejections as a political tool, but it is not inherently destructive: if the culprit is a Delegate, he can be unseated, and if he's a Founder, it's his region anyway, and anyone who doesn't like it can go start their own.

What is contentious is whether a new UN Delegate should be allowed to enter a long-standing region, seize power, and eject long-serving regional residents. For me, an important question is whether this action is constructive or destructive. Is the invasion adding a layer of intrigue to the game, or is it destroying the region's community, hierarchy, and reason for being? Unfortunately, the answer usually isn't clear-cut; usually it's "both."

Although viewpoints differ, most people agree that invading a long-standing region, taking the Delegateship, permanently ejecting all the residents, and password-protecting the region is destructive. Allowing this would do more harm to NationStates than good, as invaders move like a locust swarm from one prize region to another, zeroing in on anything that other players care about. For this reason, moderators have decided that while a proportion of natives can be ejected as part of an invasion, they must be allowed back in. It's arbitrary and it's unrealistic, but it prevents invasions from becoming too destructive.

A question asked in this thread by Ballotonia: "What are you trying to achieve with the invasions you undertake?" It's an important one. My answer is that invaders will do as much damage to their enemies as possible within the rules. Not because they are spiteful or bad people, but because that's what you do in a competitive game. Initially, all invaders could do in NationStates was seize a region's UN Delegateship, so that's what they did. Then with Regional Control they could eject residents and modify the World Fact Book entry, so that's what they did. Either way, the real prize is taking power away from another player, and acquiring status.

So you can make a fair argument that there's no reason for invaders to eject nations at all; the only reason they want to is because they can, and if Regional Control included the ability to halve another nation's population, then they'd do that, too. I take very seriously arguments by invaders that they should be free to exploit the game rules to their fullest extent, but I would point out that these rules are not yours by right. They were not introduced to make invasions easier but to deal with griefers; you did fine before they came along and that you benefited from them was a side-effect.

Another question that's been asked before is: do natives want to simply mind their own business, remaining free from the whole invader game, or do they want to be part of it? It's been argued that an invader makes a choice to play the invader game, but a defender has the choice forcibly made for him/her. Conversely, it's also been suggested that this is the type of game NationStates is, and all players, whether invaders or defenders, need to simply accept that invasions are always a risk. On top of that, players may be initially resistant to the idea of invasions, but find them fun when caught up in one.

Several systems have been suggested that would use an opt-in or opt-out system, but all have flaws. However, we shouldn't stop thinking about how we could improve things even if it means quite significant gameplay changes.

As an example I'll toss up a few ideas. I mean these as starting points, not fully-fledged blueprints. They may very well be unworkable.

We could record a nation's length of residency in a region, and compare this to the residency of the UN Delegate trying to eject him. So a Delegate who has is brand new to the region cannot eject old residents straight away (or, perhaps, he can do it, but is warned the action is reported to Mods, and illegal unless the expelled nation was spamming/griefing). Maybe the Delegate can eject 3 days worth of nations for every day of residency, or something similar. This would remove the need for much Moderator intervention, including deciding who's a native, who's an invader, and who's a defender. It would also make smash n' grab invasions much harder, since it tips the scales in favour of nations who don't move around much, but would still allow for stealthier, better-planned invasions.

Or we could introduce "endorsement smashing," a Regional Control feature that would allow the UN Delegate to cancel the endorsements of another nation in the same region. As a purely political tool, it would mean ejections could become a solely administrative tool, with punishments for Delegates who use it otherwise. This would mean no nation need be thrown out of his region, but might create more work for Mods in determining when an ejection was legal and when it wasn't. It also doesn't have quite the same zing to it as an ejection, so may not please invaders.

I suggest these so you know that I'm open to creating new systems like this if we can come up with one that accomplishes everything we want it to. None of them may improve upon the suggested ruleset, which I think is pretty good, but it's worth thinking about. Certainly anyone who is unhappy with the proposed rules should feel some pressure to come up with a better alternative. ;)

This was supposed to just be a small response to the first quote, but it sort of kept growing...

]Another question that's been asked before is: do natives want to simply mind their own business, remaining free from the whole invader game, or do they want to be part of it? It's been argued that an invader makes a choice to play the invader game, but a defender has the choice forcibly made for him/her. Conversely, it's also been suggested that this is the type of game NationStates is, and all players, whether invaders or defenders, need to simply accept that invasions are always a risk.
I've always thought that there are really four groups - those who only want to invade (and thus heavily protect their home region), those who want to protect regions from invasion (perhaps as a result of having there own region invaded in the past), those who do both (and therefore might prefer a system and ruleset where neither side has an inherent advantage, and probably won't target any region that does not offer a good challenge), and those who want nothing to do with the whole thing (the ones who tend to get flattened by the only-want-to-invade people).

The groups who would obviously benefit from an opt-in invasion system are the invade-and-defend people (they'd hopefully get a group of reasonably strong opponents they can actually contend with without having to worry about all the rules aimed at protecting the leave-us-alone group) and the leave-us-alone people (who would have less chance of waking up one morning to find some invader riffraff has invited itself in and is disrupting their region). The invade-onlies probably wouldn't like it, since they don't have any easy targets left, and defender groups would become somewhat obsolete. I do think the invade-and-defend and leave-us-alone groups are more important than the invade-onlies and defenders. On the other hand, with a reduced set of regions involved in invading/defending, there's probably a chance that one group will become too strong unless the rules are exceptionally well-balanced.

On top of that, players may be initially resistant to the idea of invasions, but find them fun when caught up in one.
That is indeed a possibility - it sort of happened to me, actually. My home region was attacked by invader-griefers ("The Bing", who have long since vanished) back in August last year. After the moderators threw them out of the region, a few people from my region followed them to all the regions they attacked and endorsed the native delegates. After the Bing collapsed, I worked with various defender groups, and was involved in a few of the attempts to invade/liberate (delete as appropriate, depending on the reader's opinion) The Pacific. Once that was a failure, I did a bit more defending.

However, one thing I've noticed is that these days the defenders seem to be stronger in numbers, so the success of an invasion depends mainly on whether the invaders are already known (and thus being watched). This isn't really all that much fun for anyone (unless the invaders are well-coordinated and very clever, so there's still an element of strategy). I've only twice seen such a group on either side of an invasion - the NPO certainly knew what they were doing (whether or not you think it was right), and my home region (I'm don't mean the home of this nation, which is somewhat migratory) is a very cohesive and clever group, but collectively the region is fairly isolationist.


One thing I reckon would help the situation (and I just thought of this now, so there are probably a good number of problems with it) would be a small set of new regions with no founder, where ejections are freely allowed, bans auto-expire after a few hours (perhaps the shortest of six hours or until the delegate position switches), and where the delegate position switches more often (perhaps even as soon as another nation has more endorsements than the delegate?).

I don't know a huge amount about program efficiency in this sort of environment, or how long it would take to make and test the necessary alterations to the region code, but if it's feasible then you'd have a decent bunch of regions for invading/defending - more reliance on strategy, coordination, and timing than on numbers (should we wait for a while, and try to figure out what times of day the delegate isn't watching? Is it better to sacrifice a UN nation and the endorsement it'd provide for better alertness, by having two people share the delegate nation*? Etc.). Furthermore, the regions can't really become too safe from invasion to make attempts pointless, and the people who control the region are guaranteed to be people who want to play an invasion/defence game - if not, then they wouldn't have taken the region in the first place.


* I don't know the details of how the UN multi checks work, so there's a good chance that doing this would actually be an incredibly bad idea. I certainly wouldn't try it myself without asking a moderator about it first.

Wait a second, what I'm gathering from your last post is that it's more of an issue of unfair enforcement than unfair rules...
As I stated, I have a number of issues with the new rules, but the enforcement problem is certainly far and away the most important factor here. You can make whatever rules you want, but if they don't apply equally to all players and if they can be ignored at will by a mod who had a bad day at work, then this discussion has no meaning at all.

We've given the mods the benefit of the doubt before and always been punished for it, so forgive me if I'm a little skeptical of the process by now.

And, to be honest, I feel is my fault. I've not been terribly active in the Mod Centre as of late.
Well, I thank you for falling on your sword here and I believe that you honestly do want to rectify the situation, but I'd rather see a systemic change to the rules that prevents this kind of thing from happening in the future.

It would certainly be a gesture that could be interpreted as giving a damn about invaders.

I've also seen punk kids grief a region for no reason - other than to be a punk.
This is again showing a bias. Punk kids are allowed to be punks, as long as they follow the rules. There should not be different rules for those mods don't like. A "punk" should be defined as someone who breaks the rules.

Flat out refusal to compromise on the part of the invaders isnt going to help any of us. We offer compromises, you throw them back in our faces saying 'it's not enough because it makes it too challenging for us'.
I've suggested many compromises here, but, more importantly, and to really get at the heart of this discussion...

What is wrong with the current rules that you are trying to "fix"?

What is the purpose of messing around with the password rules or the ejection limit? What sort of actions, specifically, are you trying to prevent? Are you trying to limit the length of invasions? What behavior that is currently legal are you trying to put a stop to?

If you want an offer of compromise, then I need to know what you're really trying to accomplish here. It's been implied that this is just a rule "clarification", but it's clearly much more than that.

This is how it's gone in the past...

...mods create rules to limit the power of invaders. Smart invaders find a new way to invade. Mods change the rules again. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

In the meantime, the same damn griefing kids continue to give invaders a bad name, mods and other players get pissed off, and there's another crackdown on invaders.

But the problem of the kids with infinite AOL e-mail addresses is never solved. You make new rules, which limit the effectiveness of those who try to follow them, and the "punks" keep cheerfully doing what they're doing.

How about an experiment?

For a week, a mod goes on a full-time multi hunt. No screwing around with anything else, just purely looking for cheaters. Sometimes I do it for fun and it usually doesn't take any more than 20 minutes to come up with a sizeable list of obvious cheaters, and I don't even have access to all the logs the mods can see.

Take care of the actual problem and see what happens to the system. I'll bet you'll notice a sharp decline in all complaints. You might even drive away some of the cheaters for good if they think someone is actually going to try and stop them.

I guarantee this will be a much more potent step than making a thousand new arbitrary rules that will inevitably result in new threads of dispute (and, ultimately, still more pointless rule modification).

Everyone wants to win - invaders/defenders, natives. What makes your desire to win more important than theirs?
Well, that train has already left the station, since you've already decided that natives' desire to win is more important than ours, and the rules already favor them quite strongly. I just don't understand why adding new rules to hinder us is a "compromise".

I understand that you guys/gals dont want to be restricted, but you have to see the other side.
The point, however, is that we are already tremendously restricted. You must understand that a new plan that makes things even worse is not going to be greeted with a mighty cheer.

I believe the rules to be fair.
Sorry, but this really made me chuckle. I'm sure a lot of things seem fair to those who are not always presumed guilty...

violet's comments are welcome, refreshing, and certainly sound promising. I'll have to take some time to process them.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

We could simplifly matters:


1: Invading is cool, and it adds to the exitement.
2: Invaders should not eject at all, unless gamerules are violated. (Not even for tactical reasons)
3: Invaders may password the region. No need to hand out the word to natives.
4: Invaders, may stay as long as they wish, and are declared "winners" when battle is won.
5: Invaders and Defenders are the same. One cannot eject the other. The winner simply passwords the region, and the fight is done. Everyone dissagreeing with the outcome should move on to better places.
6: As soon as 1 nation gets ejected, the invasion is declared illegal.
7: Invaders get status "Ocupiers" when battle is won, but are still not allowed to eject natives.
8: Invaders become natives, only when they give delegate position to an active native, for at least 72 hours. (That active delegate may still eject the invaders instantly)


This leaves plenty of room for natives to fight the force from the inside. If they can't do that, they shouldn't have let strange forces enter their region at the first place. If the region has no founder or delegate, tough luck. There are lots of safe places everywhere.

I believe that moderators are not up to their task, if they don't simplify these rules significanty.

And those rules leave plenty of room for abuse, and create even more work. The problem isn't so much legal invaders, but griefers who invade for no other purpose than to disrupt and/or ruin the game for others. Then there are murky terms as well- when is a battle 'won', one way or the other? Some invasion battles I've seen take days to sort out, with no clear-cut 'victory' one way or the other. "1: Invading is cool, and it adds to the exitement."- That first one alone is entirely subjective, there are people who would argue it with you until you're both blue in the face that invasions suck and are a scourge upon the game. Then you have the fact that invasions were never originally an intended aspect of game play, as [violet] has stated.

I also somehow suspect that a lot of regular invaders will find more things they don't like about your proposed 'simple' ruleset as well.

Just my $0.02.

In the meantime, the same damn griefing kids continue to give invaders a bad name, mods and other players get pissed off, and there's another crackdown on invaders.

But the problem of the kids with infinite AOL e-mail addresses is never solved. You make new rules, which limit the effectiveness of those who try to follow them, and the "punks" keep cheerfully doing what they're doing.

We already tried to talk Max into banned AOHell entirely. He said no. :cry:

so................. when r these rules gonna go in effect, cos i think they good, and since im the only 1 who matters, and i already voted, they should go into effect now.

Kwas out.

In the meantime, the same damn griefing kids continue to give invaders a bad name, mods and other players get pissed off, and there's another crackdown on invaders.

But the problem of the kids with infinite AOL e-mail addresses is never solved. You make new rules, which limit the effectiveness of those who try to follow them, and the "punks" keep cheerfully doing what they're doing.

We already tried to talk Max into banned AOHell entirely. He said no. :cry:

Awww....

/mode &NationStates +b *!*@*.ipt.aol.com :twisted:

One thing I reckon would help the situation (and I just thought of this now, so there are probably a good number of problems with it) would be a small set of new regions with no founder, where ejections are freely allowed, bans auto-expire after a few hours (perhaps the shortest of six hours or until the delegate position switches), and where the delegate position switches more often (perhaps even as soon as another nation has more endorsements than the delegate?).

I don't know a huge amount about program efficiency in this sort of environment, or how long it would take to make and test the necessary alterations to the region code, but if it's feasible then you'd have a decent bunch of regions for invading/defending

I don't see any significant technical problems, but I do see the same problem as all opt-in/opt-out systems: there's no reason to opt-in. Why would you do it, if it just exposes your region to an invasion? And trying to fix that problem generally means introducing new loopholes (most involving invaders routing their attacks through a throwaway opt-in region) and problems (making life hard for people who don't want to play the invasion game), while also making the system more complex.

I like the rules as they were originally posted, I say go for it.

Kwas out.

]Why would you do it, if it just exposes your region to an invasion?
Well, I was thinking that the groups which manage to take and hold such regions would be the ones who are the best at invading and defending (especially if they throw another powerful and vindictive group out when they first take the region - that means there's at least one tough group which hasn't managed to get it back yet), and that holding the region is a visible indication of that. And hopefully that's a niche that a good portion of invaders would like to occupy. That's also why I think a fairly small set of game-created regions would be better than letting anyone set this status on their existing region - controlling one is better when there aren't very many of them. Much the same thing is true of the special regions that exist now - the Pacifics wouldn't be as special if there were fifteen feeders instead of five, or if anyone could turn their own region into a feeder.

The various parameters (delegate turnover time, ban expiry time, etc.) would probably need to carefully balanced - probably so that with two groups of the same size and skill, the defending group would be a bit more likely to win (around 60-70% of the time, perhaps). I'm not really sure at all what sort of values would do that, but the idea is that the regions wouldn't be so volatile that a strong group can't hold one for a decent length of time (otherwise there wouldn't be many people who'd want to take one), while still being an relatively easy target for invasion.

It does indeed seem that this system wouldn't be much good to people who just want to invade, and not defend... but I'm not too sure there's anything which will both satisfy them, and protect the people who want to be left alone...

Why not go with the rules as proposed (and then modified) and wait for NationStates 22½ to introduce a more reasonable framework for invaders to run amok.

The problem isn't so much legal invaders, but griefers who invade for no other purpose than to disrupt and/or ruin the game for others.
So, do you think these new rules are going to address this problem?

It looks like the problem you are trying to solve is the attitude of the invaders. What it seems you really want is a rule that says "Don't be mean".

As a mod, what would you say is the overlap between the "griefers" you describe above and multis? In my experience, it's almost a one-to-one relationship.

Why not go with the rules as proposed (and then modified) and wait for NationStates 22½ to introduce a more reasonable framework for invaders to run amok.
Because it doesn't solve anything. And 3 months later we'll be having the same debate.

If we're going to seriously try and do something about this issue, the goal needs to be something more than "make invasions harder for legal invaders". The mods have been trying that for months, and all it does is suck for legal invaders.

The griefing continues. Mods don't seem to be spending any less time dealing with grey areas, and any decrease in such disputes is most likely due to driving away legal invaders by making it clear that their entire purpose is to make sure invasions fail. There's a lot of talk about making sure the game is fun for everyone, and since invaders are legal players, they should also be included.

There's a lot of talk about making sure the game is fun for everyone, and since invaders are legal players, they should also be included.

So how's about you stop bitching and come up with your own proposed ruleset?

Why not go with the rules as proposed (and then modified) and wait for NationStates 22½ to introduce a more reasonable framework for invaders to run amok.
Because it doesn't solve anything. And 3 months later we'll be having the same debate.

If we're going to seriously try and do something about this issue, the goal needs to be something more than "make invasions harder for legal invaders". The mods have been trying that for months, and all it does is suck for legal invaders.

…



I read what you are typing; the current and the new rules are fair but make invasions bloody difficult.

Nevertheless, invasions need to be designed into the game, they are an exploit now; rule adjustments are not going to change that.

The clarity of having a reference document for these new rules is going to be useful to natives, defenders, and especially invaders. The rules are not really changing.

Why not go with the rules as proposed (and then modified) and wait for NationStates 22½ to introduce a more reasonable framework for invaders to run amok.
Who told you about NationStates 22½??

If we're going to seriously try and do something about this issue, the goal needs to be something more than "make invasions harder for legal invaders". The mods have been trying that for months, and all it does is suck for legal invaders.
This is one part of your argument I don't quite understand, this idea that life is painfully hard for invaders. It seems to me that the ruleset allows you to smash into a region and grab power easily enough, providing you have the numbers. It only governs behaviour when you start taking extreme measures like ejecting residents and password-protecting the region. In that case, rules are necessary to allow mods to distinguish between people playing hardball and people intent on nothing more than ruining the enjoyment of other people.

You can invade without password protection and mass ejection; it happened all the time prior to April 2003, when we got Region Control. I understand that it's fun to eject natives, and a way to flex your muscles in victory, but is it an essential part of invading? I have the feeling that if the UN Delegate could steal population from his/her residents, then immediately invaders would want the unfettered ability to do that, too. But not because it's needed, just because it's there.

]Why would you do it, if it just exposes your region to an invasion?
Well, I was thinking that the groups which manage to take and hold such regions would be the ones who are the best at invading and defending

Not speaking for any defender but myself, but without natives present in those regions (or: only natives present who should know they were voluntarily moving there to live in a warzone), I see no value in battling invaders for those regions. Let them have those regions and fight one another, I'd say.

Ballotonia

]Why not go with the rules as proposed (and then modified) and wait for NationStates 22½ to introduce a more reasonable framework for invaders to run amok.
Who told you about NationStates 22½??

I have my sauces; Velouté, Béarnaise, Espagnole, Beurre noisette etcetera.

And hear hear to the above. I didn't start defending because it looked fun, I went to stop a region being griefed and ended up committed to the cause. Get rid of griefing and I'll have to find something else to do, but I can live with that.

]It seems to me that the ruleset allows you to smash into a region and grab power easily enough, providing you have the numbers.
That was before you instituted founders, passwords, ejections, etc.

Each invasion might not be so precious if you didn't make it technically impossible to hold 99% of all regions for more than a couple hours. Is this what you intend when you say that "invasions should be legal"? Is the intent of all the new rules to limit the duration of invasions to a few hours each?

If you really do mean that an invader delegate should only be able to rule until the regional founder wakes up, grabs a cup of coffee and logs on, then just say it out loud, please.

It only governs behaviour when you start taking extreme measures like ejecting residents and password-protecting the region.
In practice, all these tools are necessary to deal with antis, particularly since they receive preferential treatment from your mods.

In that case, rules are necessary to allow mods to distinguish between people playing hardball and people intent on nothing more than ruining the enjoyment of other people.
Is there a legal definition that actually separates these two classes of players? You already have rules which ban mass ejections and spamming (each of which could be severely limited by technical means). It looks to me like you are attempting to moderate attititude, which is never going to work, unless you let mods delete anyone they don't like (which, basically, is what happens in practice).

I understand that it's fun to eject natives, and a way to flex your muscles in victory, but is it an essential part of invading?
Yes.

I think you should all come out on an invasion field trip with us so you can truly understand what is necessary to carry out a successful invasion these days. You guys seem to have a very distorted picture of how much effort is required.

Of course, the easiest possible way to invade is to create a dozen multis.

I read what you are typing; the current and the new rules are fair but make invasions bloody difficult.
Only if you're an actual invader. The new rules seemed designed to give antis unfettered access to any region at any time, however.

Nevertheless, invasions need to be designed into the game, they are an exploit now; rule adjustments are not going to change that.
That's one way of looking at it, and certainly highlights a key problem. Invasions are legal, but only if they aren't too successful. Until some sort of concrete plan is laid out, these issues (and these tedious threads) are never going to go away.

The rules are not really changing.
Have you read the proposed changes closely? Read them again, and this time pretend you're an invader and not an anti.

So how's about you stop bitching and come up with your own proposed ruleset?
I've tried that before. Seriously, there's no chance in hell that you guys are going to take my advice...you've made that quite apparent as time has gone by.

Besides, I'm a player, not a mod or a coder. It's not my job to define the rules. You asked what invaders thought of the proposed rules, I gave you my opinion, and you told me to "stop bitching". This is how it goes, and how it always will be until the prevailing mindset of the mods is changed. We've long called for at least one pro-invader mod who knows what it takes to carry out a successful invasion, but I'm not sure that's even a possibility. I sure wouldn't want the job. I want to play a game, not argue about it. That's why I hate these threads so much.

Getting back to your point, though, it's going to take a fundamental change to the game itself, which is why I'm glad violet is now involved. These rule tweakages have never and will never accomplish what you want, because what you want is for invading armies to not upset the natives, which is impossible.

As far as I'm concerned, we could best make the controversy go away by technical changes to the game. Remove the human element whenever possible, so there can be no claims of favoritism.

I'm not sure how best to code these, but one thing I often bring up is the issue of spamming.

Right now, there's nothing to stop someone from posting a ridiculously long message that screws up the forwarding 10 times in a row. That's annoying, and something you want to prevent.

So, fix it.

Don't allow someone to make 10 posts in a row. Stick in a mandatory linebreak at 80 characters (or whatever). There's 2 problems that will never happen again, ever.

Obviously, there will always be jerks trying to get around the problem and there are some obvious exploits, but you should be concentrating on making illegal behavior difficult to do automatically.

Maybe some kind of automatic limited invitation system could replace the rickety password system which requires constant mod intervention. I dunno. I'm not a game designer.

But the point is that if the rules are dictated primarily by game mechanics there wouldn't be so much pointless dispute in the forums. Instead of a 7 page thread containing a lot of inconclusive discussion regarding what's legal and what's not, the game engine should handle these things whenever possible, impersonally.

Then the invaders will also know what you're really trying to accomplish with all these rule changes and at that time they can decide whether or not this is really a game worth playing. Right now, all they know is that any time, any rule can be changed or ignored at the whim of a trigger happy mod, which is a great source of animosity.

If the rules can be compressed into something of reasonable length (and mechanically enforced whenever possible), then it will also free up the mods from dealing with tons of complaints.

"We're very sorry, but you could have taken advantage of numerous tools of defense, but you didn't use them effectively (or at all) and you got burned. The invaders have done what is necessary to seize power in your region, which is a part of the game. You are not out of options however..." and then you can point them to a list of legal responses, such as refounding a new region (and hopefully paying closer attention to defenses this time around), waiting the invasion out, negotiating with the invaders...or the old-fashioned, time-tested method of spamming your own region, griefing the invaders, and whining to mods at such a volume that they delete the invader delegate. :wink:

Beachcomber: Again I read what you are typing. For what is now for many players an important part of the game; invasions are too difficult. There are still though many players who want nothing to do with them. I still see this as requiring a major change in the game itself rather then the ruleset.

I don't get your insistence that there are major rule changes proposed. Passwords could be seen as becoming stricter, but it's so vague at the moment who knows what the current Mods are enforcing and how much variation there is. I don't agree as I said above with outlawing the ejection of non-UN nations, but there you go, apparently it's done deal.

It's still easy though for you to take many regions, just not to hold them. I think Violet is asking why you would want to hold them.

As an anti I only want to eject invaders on which there is no limit so I'm home free. I do take that point and that Mods are soft on us, but you also have to appreciate that we tend to ignore invaders who charge in, win, then leave at the next update and that we've been preventing (and still do) griefings for longer and (in volume terms) more effectively then the Mods.

Until invasions are properly built into the game defenders are often vigilantes filling in for busy Mods. There aren't many Mods and there are a lot of invasions.

Edit: though I do admit we often follow invaders around out of pride or spit, we are human after all.

Beachcomber, I have YET to hear ANY suggestions for rule improvements. For the past YEAR I have heard nothing from you but bitching because 'the Mods are getting tougher on invaders yet again.'

The reality is that both proposed rule sets give FAR more leniency than is currently provided.

1. Currently, passwords must be given out IMMEDIATELY following being set. Both proposed rulesets give more time for the invaders to accomplish this task.

2. Currently, any Native ejected must be IMMEDIATELY removed from the ban-list. The proposed rules offer 24 hrs (Rep's) and 12 hrs (mine) of ban-time. And to be honest, You could EASILY make do with 6.


Look, basically you have two choices:

A. You can continue to bitch simply because the rules are being changed, and there are any rules limiting you as an invader

OR

B. At least make constructive arguments that haven't already been discussed and responded to, and perhaps even move up to providing constructive ideas for correcting what you see as flawed.

First off,
I am sick of all this Big Brother doublespeak propaganda,
Ivaders are not all griefers.
Griefers are not invaders.
Get the terminology right. your stupid propaganda language is annoying.

All the big name invaders have posted ideas to fix the game, and well they should know what is being exploited, they work within the framework of the ill concieved, knee jerk rulesets refereed to as the "NS good ol boy network".

everytime one of them suggests something Neut chimes in with his
"@@random name@@ you are just trying to make the game easier for invaders, you should really quit suggesting stuff to help them and not support natives.this game is made for the players not the invaders."
this is said regardless of what is suggested.
Ack is usually the target of this agression as he is the most vociferous of the invaders.

We know themods dont like invaders, as is evidenced by the recent Max chat session, Im sorry but I feel a bit personally insulted by the choice of invasion realted querries, call me crazy but why would a question from a former invader be passed off as superphlous and a Defender invaders querrie is fine?
The mods want invaders gone, Just out right ban it, quit trying to add rules which do nothing but complicate the game because as we all know, from the post up above, we dont want to complicate the game (I cite the opt in, system).

as I understand the population breaks down to
75% Dont cares who just log in answer their issues and go away.
15% RPers
5% Invaders
5% Defenders.

now the 75% dont speak, so you cannot consider their opinion in the big blanket "most of the folks dont like invasions" crowd.
of the remaining 25% a little over half are rpers, and they are the vociferous anti invasion crowd, Just give them the ability to lock their region from all outside contact, just like those of the school (CV 02)
no TM's from outside, no ability to send a TM to anyone outside their region, No entry with out passwords, and set it so once turned on, it cannot be turned off. Simple, this will probably make the 75% crowd happy too.

and allow the same options for the other part,
when you create a region, you can opt in for No invasion mode.
Classic mode alter regional factbook only, and modern mode,
and set it so if you opt for an invasion mode, then you are free game.
perhaps the option to not allow acces to founder control panel, instead replace founded by, Invasion Region.

What ticks me off the most is when I first joined all I can recall seeing was
"We want War, give us War" everywhere, Well, the Farkers brought you War, it aint so pretty is it, now everyone wants to loose it, funny how things change. And funnier than that, when the new regional controls were encated all the invaders said, you probably just created a worse monster, and it was proven true.

Even worse, when it comes to moderation, we have known Defender mods, known anti invasion mods, mods who dont care, RP mods, but no Invader mods, who would be better to consult with than a moderator who understands, and activly participated in invasion, but no, that wouldbe too simple, as the general desire is to try to drive them off, yet no one can admit that. Blatant favoritism and whatnot probably.

Admitadly this is no where near all I wnat to say, as I cannot remember it all right now, but it is part of the iceberg.
Pardon me for being so long winded. but I feel like MLK jr. looking out on the oppressed of the south, and thinking when will we have equality.*




[*Yes, I know everyone is going to whine and scream about me comparing Invaders to the oppressed southern black prior to civil rights movement era, but the whites didnt see any oppression either then as it wasnt they weho were being oppressed, this is my final statement on that part, so if you post a flambait about the comparison, I wont reply.]

JUST GO WITH IT ALREADY!!! I am an invader, I like them, just please already.

Kwas out.

Not speaking for any defender but myself, but without natives present in those regions (or: only natives present who should know they were voluntarily moving there to live in a warzone), I see no value in battling invaders for those regions. Let them have those regions and fight one another, I'd say.
I should have made it clearer that I meant "holding the region they've taken" where I said "defending". I couldn't really think of a better word to use.


First off,
as I understand the population breaks down to
75% Dont cares who just log in answer their issues and go away.
15% RPers
5% Invaders
5% Defenders.

now the 75% dont speak, so you cannot consider their opinion in the big blanket "most of the folks dont like invasions" crowd.
They often do if they get invaded, and in my experience most of them don't like it.
Even worse, when it comes to moderation, we have known Defender mods, known anti invasion mods, mods who dont care, RP mods, but no Invader mods, who would be better to consult with than a moderator who understands, and activly participated in invasion, but no, that wouldbe too simple, as the general desire is to try to drive them off, yet no one can admit that. Blatant favoritism and whatnot probably.
Well, people generally get rather annoyed when their region is invaded. Choosing someone who regularly annoys people as a player (intentionally or not) to be a moderator probably isn't all that desirable.

I'll try to catch up soon. Not that it matters, bnut wanted to let it be known that at least some invaders are activvally looking at these and ddiscussing, and we ind post some of our concerns soon. I just wanted to be sure that mods didn't think there was no interest...

Regarding the "no Invader mods" issue:

Mods serve to help enforce the rules, correct?

Then perhaps they should live up to their charter.

Until mods are benign people from some forgotten part of the world who haven't ever seen a computer, we will need a system to balance moderators.

Too often, defenders will get away with griefing different regions, whereas an invader can get deleted for violating a single rule.

Raiding is legal, so how about a fair system that give equal advantages to both raiders, defenders and bystanders as well as rules and governs moderator actions and enforces them as strictly as rules are enforced on players.

Here:

•Invaders are allowed to forcibly take control of a region.
•After invading, Invaders may instate a regional password.
•This password may be kept a secret, however MUST be given out to a native as per request.
•Invaders may eject the founder and/or delegate and must remove them from the ban list within 1 day of the ejection.
•Invaders may eject a reasonable number of nations, as to be determined by the moderators based on the region's size.
•Natives are determined as nations that have resided in the said region for 1 week, or to be determined by a moderator, for example, a new recruitee to a region.
•Invaders have full discretion regarding non-native nations within said region, including ejection and permanent banning.
•Defenders, treated as raiders, must obey all above said rules, especially when defending an inactive region by electing their own delegate.
•Native delegates or founders always have sub-mod powers within their region, including banning and ejection of all nations, as well as instituting passwords, not requiring them to distribute the password.
•Defenders may not, under any circumstances, attempt to use moderator intervention or preference to achieve their own goals.
•Upon ejecting a native nation other than the delegate or founder, said nation must be immediately be removed from the regional ban list (exempt under circumstances of 4th clause)
•Passwords, when given out, must be clearly stated and, to alleviate confusion, should be placed on a separate line (see fig. 1).
•Invaders may use, for tactical advantage, spamming of the regional happenings, only with a maximum of 10 different nations moving into a region and back out. For example, 1 nation cannot sweep the message board, but up to 10 nations may move directly in and out of the region to achieve a similar effect.
•Invaders who flagrantly or frequently break these rules will be deleted. Invaders who find loopholes are not punished and are allowed to exploit the loophole at their discretion until the loophole is closed.
•NO NATIONS (Invaders, Defenders, Natives) may have more than one UN nation.

Rules Regarding Mods:
•Any moderator found deliberatly exploiting these rules to his/her region and/or cause's best interests will lose moderator status.
•Any moderator purposefully allowing actions in violation of this rule will lose moderator status.
•Any moderator deliberatly baiting, tempting or attempting to cause a rule violation, from deleting a password request to impersonating a nation, will lose moderator status.
•Any moderator deliberatly using his/her status as moderator to deliberatly bend open-end rules in his/her interests will lose moderator status.
•Any moderator caught deliberatly abusing his/her powers as moderator will lose moderator status.
•Moderators may align themselves as defenders or invaders, however may not act on those aligments (i.e. favouring a defender by moving the update back, ecetera) on penalty of loss of moderator priveleges.
•Invaders, representing some population of NationStates should have at least a single moderator from a raiding region officially declared as "Invader Aligned".

Figure 1: Regarding passwords:

-- Password = adf;alsksdjf
Password is "adf;alsksdjf" NO GOOD
--
-- Password = "adflkjds"
Password is
"adflkjds"
OKAY
--
-- Password = nano
Password
"nano" NO GOOD
--

I think all bases are covered. Can we all swallow our pride enough to agree to govern ourselves and each other?

Rules Regarding Mods:
•Any moderator found deliberatly exploiting these rules to his/her region and/or cause's best interests will lose moderator status.
•Any moderator purposefully allowing actions in violation of this rule will lose moderator status.
•Any moderator deliberatly baiting, tempting or attempting to cause a rule violation, from deleting a password request to impersonating a nation, will lose moderator status.
•Any moderator deliberatly using his/her status as moderator to deliberatly bend open-end rules in his/her interests will lose moderator status.
•Any moderator caught deliberatly abusing his/her powers as moderator will lose moderator status.
•Moderators may align themselves as defenders or invaders, however may not act on those aligments (i.e. favouring a defender by moving the update back, ecetera) on penalty of loss of moderator priveleges.


You think this isn't already the case?

Interesting debate!

A few questions about founders......

As a founder, I can eject/ban anyone for any reason? I wouldn't do that - I use discretion. If someone spams my board and I catch them, they are out. If someone tries to recruit on my board, I warn them not to. If they persist, I ban them.

If an invasion attempt it made, I watch. If invaders take over the UN Delegacy, what damage can they do? None!

Question One - do the mods intend to allow Founders to retain the right to disable UN Delegate access to Regional Control? I hope so, because apart from being online 24 hours a day, I cannot see any other way to truly protect my region! If the game removes the only protection I have, then what's the point? ;)

As a Founder, I find it immenesely annoying when people spam my board. I have made a couple of suggestions in the appropriate thread regarding how to prevent this.

Question Two - If spammers/invaders/griefers post for example abusive or hostile messages, can Founders still have the right to ban them? Do I have to, as a Founder, remove them from the ban list or does that rule only apply to a "new invading force" who takes control and ejects a native?

Finally, regarding defence of my region.

Question Three. I wish to be clear on one point. If my region is invaded, and it's clear that it is a hostile invasion, as the Founder, what DEFENSIVE ACTION am I allowed to take in terms of ejection and ban?! Are there any proposed changed to the current action that I am missing?

Regards

Mac Fans
Founder, Sweden

Oops. Just realised I was logged in as 'Justchecking'.

/Mac Fans.

You think this isn't already the case?

I'm tempted to shout "HUH?! MUST HAVE MISSED IT!!!"

Instead, I'm going to say that it would be better to have these rules written down, because it seems that at least some have confusion regarding those rules.

If the governors cannot be governed...

who governs the governors?

If the governors cannot be governed...

who governs the governors?

[violet] and Max Barry.

I still see this as requiring a major change in the game itself rather then the ruleset.
I agree. I also think that there needs to be some consensus regarding the obvious paradox: All these rules are designed to keep people from being annoyed, but all invasions involve one party losing to another, which typically annoys the losing party. It's this issue of "griefing" that never goes away.

I don't get your insistence that there are major rule changes proposed.
Suffice it to say that the new rule changes will severely limit a delegate's term of office. I do admit that the 12-hour banning thing is a nod to invaders, though, which is nice.

It's still easy though for you to take many regions, just not to hold them. I think Violet is asking why you would want to hold them.
Because that's what an invading army does. What's the point of rushing in, toppling the Saddam statue and running away?

Until invasions are properly built into the game...
I think the problem is that invasions are properly built-in, but now we're trying to add a fuzzy extra layer on top of it.

The rules need to be real rules, not just guidelines that you can ignore until a mod notices.

For example, there's this concept of "natives" that is never satisfactorily resolved. All we have to do is make the game engine define a "native". If a nation has been in a region for X days, then it's a native. Period. No questions asked, and the game knows it.

If you want to limit ejections of natives, then when a non-native becomes delegate, he has a hard limit, based on a percentage of the native population. (Ejecting the same nation should count only once.)

Non-natives can be ejected at any time in any number.

It's been implied that spies are legal, so that's how spies work. Get yourself set up in a region for X days and if you earn the trust of the populace, then you've successfully deceived them. You can't rush in at the last second and claim to be a native or a native's brother or whatever...the real natives will have plenty of time to pass judgement on you.

None of this is left up to the mods, none of this up for dispute, any threads started regarding the issue can be posted but will just be forwarded to a very short list of rules.

If you want some sort of "X nation can be ejected for 12 hours" rule, have the ban automatically expire after 12 hours (or the next system update or however the engine can best handle this). No mods necessary, no arguments, no claims of unfair enforcement, etc.

Well, people generally get rather annoyed when their region is invaded. Choosing someone who regularly annoys people as a player (intentionally or not) to be a moderator probably isn't all that desirable.
People get annoyed when they lose. People usually lose to good players. So you're saying that good players should not be mods.

Maybe we should only allow lousy invaders (who don't bother anyone) to be mods?

Beachcomber, I have YET to hear ANY suggestions for rule improvements.
Well, at least you've confirmed my suspicions that you've never taken anything I've written seriously. This is a prime example of why using people like you to determine what's legal is inherently flawed.

You need to be taken out of the process, whenever possible.

I thank you for making my point for me.

Couldn't the game define a native as something along the lines of someone who has spent 75% of their time in that region over the last 20 days? (eg: >15 of the last 20 updates spent in that region). And then a native delegate would be either someone who is a both a native and delegate of that region, or someone (whether native or not) who's endorsements are more than 75% from other natives. Then you would have a clear definition and an easy way to tell whether someone was a native or not, and any invasion that leads to an occupation of greater than 15 days would then become natives. All other rules would then follow on as per usual.

What would be the problem with this? (Spoffin asks as he sees Sal have multiple heart attacks)

Mac:

The regional Founder is not restricted on ejections/bans for any reason.


Spoffin:

So, you'd like for a griefer and his crew to sit in a region for 15 days and then be able to clean it out because they're natives? See the problem?

Currently, in order for an invader delegate to gain native status, he/she must have gained enough native endorsements to outnumber the endorsements the native delegate had at the time of invasion.

I dont see the point in allowing invaders to become natives, except to allow the rules to be circumnavigated when it comes to ejections/bans/etc.


Beachcomber:

1. This is the first post of yours where you've actually made suggestions.

2. Please, keep the personal attacks out of this.

For example, there's this concept of "natives" that is never satisfactorily resolved. All we have to do is make the game engine define a "native". If a nation has been in a region for X days, then it's a native. Period. No questions asked, and the game knows it.
I have explained why this will never happen before, and I explained it again to Spoffin in this very post.

If you want to limit ejections of natives, then when a non-native becomes delegate, he has a hard limit, based on a percentage of the native population. (Ejecting the same nation should count only once.)
So, in a region of 19 inhabitants, you should be able to kick them all as often as you like? Kinda undermines the point of having a 12hr ban limit and distributing the password.

Non-natives can be ejected at any time in any number.
I still fail to see how kicking natives in ANY way assists in an invasion.


The point about spies is exactly what has been stated...thus, I see no need to post a response to it. Just assuring you that I have read your statement.

If you want some sort of "X nation can be ejected for 12 hours" rule, have the ban automatically expire after 12 hours (or the next system update or however the engine can best handle this). No mods necessary, no arguments, no claims of unfair enforcement, etc.
And how would you differentiate between ejections made by native delegates that may be permanent, and ejections made by invaders?


Just because I dont cater to your wishes does not mean I dont listen. There is far more going on that you dont see because you dont work the griefings. You dont see what griefers will manipulate to gain their goals. And you are far too adamant that invaders should not be hindered to realize that by doing so, griefers would not be hindered - meaning griefing would not be griefing. Whether you like it or not, the Moderators have to take this fact into account. This fuzzy layer you refer to? That's us taking the griefings into account. If you dont like my presence as a Mod, admin@nationstates.net

Rules Regarding Mods:
•Any moderator found deliberatly exploiting these rules to his/her region and/or cause's best interests will lose moderator status.
•Any moderator purposefully allowing actions in violation of this rule will lose moderator status.
•Any moderator deliberatly baiting, tempting or attempting to cause a rule violation, from deleting a password request to impersonating a nation, will lose moderator status.
•Any moderator deliberatly using his/her status as moderator to deliberatly bend open-end rules in his/her interests will lose moderator status.
•Any moderator caught deliberatly abusing his/her powers as moderator will lose moderator status.
•Moderators may align themselves as defenders or invaders, however may not act on those aligments (i.e. favouring a defender by moving the update back, ecetera) on penalty of loss of moderator priveleges.


You think this isn't already the case?

A mod would never make themselves the founder af a region they weren't actually the founder of just because they wanted too. (And I'm not talking about Hell)

So, you'd like for a griefer and his crew to sit in a region for 15 days and then be able to clean it out because they're natives? See the problem?
No. If an "invader" has native support, then the natives have chosen poorly, but that's democracy. And if 20 nations move into a region and sit there for a long time (I'd expect it to be longer than 15 days) and participate in current events and actually outnumber the original members, how are they not the essence of the region at that point? Regions change from time to time, and if natives don't like what they're seeing, then they should do something before the problem gets out of hand. They certainly have the tools.

This is the first post of yours where you've actually made suggestions.
You're either not being honest here or you're even more biased than I think.

Please, keep the personal attacks out of this.
When I say you're the problem, it's not a personal attack. It's the explanation of the problem, as I see it. I can't state it any other way.

I have explained why this will never happen before, and I explained it again to Spoffin in this very post.
I think if Max considers it, he'll see it will save everyone a lot of trouble.

If you want to limit ejections of natives, then when a non-native becomes delegate, he has a hard limit, based on a percentage of the native population. (Ejecting the same nation should count only once.)
So, in a region of 19 inhabitants, you should be able to kick them all as often as you like?
No, I said there should be a hard limit of ejections...let's say 20%, for the sake of discussion.

So, the nation could eject 3 or 4 natives (depending on which way you want to round) nations at any given time. The same nation shouldn't count more than once, or there's the obvious Corinthe exploit.

I still fail to see how kicking natives in ANY way assists in an invasion.
Another example of how the invader position isn't getting adequate respect in this process, I guess.

And how would you differentiate between ejections made by native delegates that may be permanent, and ejections made by invaders?
That would depend on whether the delegate is an invader or a native, which the engine would know, in a more efficient game that doesn't rely on having an argument with you to determine who's a native and who isn't.

Just because I dont cater to your wishes does not mean I dont listen.
That is not the basis for my conclusion. I don't want you to do my bidding. I don't even think you should be involved in the process.

And you are far too adamant that invaders should not be hindered to realize that by doing so, griefers would not be hindered - meaning griefing would not be griefing.
I am not sure what you're saying here.

This fuzzy layer you refer to? That's us taking the griefings into account.
And that's what needs to be removed, whenever possible.

If Max says "no swastikas" and there's no way the game engine can detect that, then that's a suitable use of mod power.

This whole "declare anything illegal at any time" thing has got to go, however.

Here's something we've been kicking around for a while.

I'm not even sure that it's a good idea, and it might put the final nail in the coffin of legit invasions, but it's something to think about, so in the interests of open discussion, I'll submit it for comment:

What if after X days, a delegate of a founderless region became founder?

It would:

a) Allow founderless regions a chance to again protect themselves without mod intervention.
b) Create a "win" condition for invaders, past which it would be evident to natives that it's no longer worth fighting, so they'd have to either move to a different region or make the conscious choice to stick around and play "the invader game".


Imagine, if you will, this situation...invaders have captured a region, and now they'd like to move on. However, a bunch of sanctimonious, hypocritical, self-important "defenders" want to steal the region away from them each night. If the invaders just leave, the "defenders" will rush in, declare victory, and mock the invaders.

This is hardly satisfactory.

I mentioned negotiating with invaders before, because this outlet is almost always overlooked and it's certainly underestimated. I think this also shows that this idealistic notion of happy frolicking natives who just want to sing songs and roll in flower beds is a bunch of nonsense.

It's true that many players don't know about invasions, but it's also true that most players react to invasions by trying to play the same game the invaders are. They have the option to take any number of peaceful means to end the invasion, but they only very rarely choose these methods.

As far as I'm concerned, these guys are making a conscious decision to cease being pacifists and are now a part of "the invasion game", whether or not they originally intended to do so.

And, when this situation occurs, the natives often "win" simply by tattling to a mod and making the invasion go away, which doesn't jibe with the concept of invasions being a legit aspect of the game.

Anyway, just offering a little insight, since it was requested.

Here's something we've been kicking around for a while.

I'm not even sure that it's a good idea, and it might put the final nail in the coffin of legit invasions, but it's something to think about, so in the interests of open discussion, I'll submit it for comment:

What if after X days, a delegate of a founderless region became founder?


Not a bad idea, really. It would also allow us to no longer have to try and figure out if Region B's request for a Founder is an "extraordinary" case or not. I'm thinking 30 days would probably be a good threshold. If the invaders can hold the region for 30 days, it's obvious that they're serious about it, but it still gives natives more than enough time muster a recovery.

And, in regions that don't want a Founder (ie: Spoffin letting his Founder puppet die), they could have the Delegateship shift, or it might be possible to code a little checkbox that the Delegate can access if they don't want to become the Founder.

Of course, I have no idea the amount of coding this would require.

Imagine, if you will, this situation...invaders have captured a region, and now they'd like to move on. However, a bunch of sanctimonious, hypocritical, self-important "defenders" want to steal the region away from them each night. If the invaders just leave, the "defenders" will rush in, declare victory, and mock the invaders.

Ad hominem aside, I'm curious about your example. If the invaders want to "move on", then why do they care what happens to the region after they leave? If the goal is to take the region, celebrate, and leave, how do defenders factor in?

First off I'd like to apologise for being one of those ‘sanctimonious, hypocritical, self-important “defenders”’. I don't see it myself, but sometimes when you're too close to a problem (actually I am pretty self-important like one of those annoying Mod-wannabes).

I think the automatic founder idea above is a non-starter, if you could find a way to make the oldest nation in a region automatically founder (like the father of the house in the British House of Commons), and get it to update when a founder dies great.

But becoming founder by being delegate for a long time won't work, it will inspire some invasion groups to always go for founder status, then they can legally empty a region and hold on to the empty region as a trophy.

If you were to do it, you would need the period as delegate to be months, not 30 days.

Just my opinion, not saying anyone else is wrong.

I reckon letting the founder position shift automatically is not a good idea - having it shift to the oldest nation in the region would let old nations move around regions with dying founders and acquire founder status all over the place, while having it shift to the nation which has spent the longest time in the region is rather biased against people who move in and out occasionally or get ejected in an invasion, as well as nations that get caught in IP bans against proxy servers and die of inactivity. Giving it to the delegate is dangerous - they might be a sort of pseudo-griefer waiting for founder status simply so they can clear the region legally. If such a nation gets into a region with enough friends to outnumber the natives, and if defenders won't help throw them throw the invaders out (which usually seems to be the case when a region is already taken), then it's just a matter of time.

Having a delegate automatically become founder is a horrible idea. It would serve to totally take away the dynamic of the game that is invasions, because it would end up with every region having a founder eventually. The delegate powers are far less than founder powers for the simple reason that they are not the founder. It isn't their region, they are simply, well, taking care of it for a while.

I agree with Mr Ledge that having the oldest nation become founder is problematic as well. His example aside, the oldest nation in the region often doesn't care for Gameplay dynamics, obviously didn't make the region themselves, and doesn't necessarily know what's going on with the region, or the other nations in it.

As I have already stated, the draft rules on the first page are far better than the revisions made on the 3rd page of the thread. The draft rules are fair IMO.

Here's something we've been kicking around for a while.

I'm not even sure that it's a good idea, and it might put the final nail in the coffin of legit invasions, but it's something to think about, so in the interests of open discussion, I'll submit it for comment:

What if after X days, a delegate of a founderless region became founder?


Not a bad idea, really. It would also allow us to no longer have to try and figure out if Region B's request for a Founder is an "extraordinary" case or not. I'm thinking 30 days would probably be a good threshold. If the invaders can hold the region for 30 days, it's obvious that they're serious about it, but it still gives natives more than enough time muster a recovery.

And, in regions that don't want a Founder (ie: Spoffin letting his Founder puppet die), they could have the Delegateship shift, or it might be possible to code a little checkbox that the Delegate can access if they don't want to become the Founder.

Of course, I have no idea the amount of coding this would require.

Are you saying that the founder would only be a "temporary" founder, b/c by shifting the Delegateship, they would become the founder? Doesn't that defeat the point? I would totally support this, as I have personally experience the bad side of a region without a founder.

Spoffin:

So, you'd like for a griefer and his crew to sit in a region for 15 days and then be able to clean it out because they're natives? See the problem?

Currently, in order for an invader delegate to gain native status, he/she must have gained enough native endorsements to outnumber the endorsements the native delegate had at the time of invasion.

I dont see the point in allowing invaders to become natives, except to allow the rules to be circumnavigated when it comes to ejections/bans/etc.


Well if you'll permit me Neut, I don't think that would be the case. If a greifer and their crew did indeed sit in a nation for long enough, they would become natives. These guys turn up a couple of months ago, they hang around, post on the Regional messageboard, do some RP, then suddenly, one day, one of them becomes delegate and starts going all Francos on the residents. Now, how do the proposed rules account for this better than having the game define natives? Its possible under both my suggestion and yours, and even the current game rules. Put it another way, how do the mods define natives better than the game could?

Also, if you don't define native accurately, isn't the problem going to be shifted? From "I didn't know about the password" to "I thought I was a native" etc.

I am an invader. One of my former nations was deleted for greifing. It was a clear cut case and I feel bad. Since then, I have always followed the rules. The only thing that is bad about invading, is the occupation thing. That all comes from the password. With the current password rules is that in no time, defenders get it and bam, were out. So, here is my proposal.

Passwords have to be given to all natives. Natives have the right to decide who can come and go in their region. But, to give a nod to invaders and defenders everywhere, how about the password be givin out within 12 hours and it cannot be changed for at least one system update after the 12 hour period. The exeption is that any native banned from the region must be given the password immediately. This would discourage banning, which the natives will like, but also let invader/defenders maintain security.

So, for example:
Invader A along with his friends, take over region R. They put a password on it. Within 12 hours the password is given out, and cannot be changed for at least one update. So, if A put a PW into place 13 hours before the main update, then the password must be givin out within 12 hours and cannot change until after the next update. If A puts the PW on 5 hours before the main update, then it must be given out within twelve hours, and cannot be changed until the next update, after the 12 hours.

Natives of regions without founders are in the war zone. If they want nothing to do with it, they can password their region and tell no one. With the banning rule, most invasions would be stopped from within because banning a region would invite external intervention (defenders). Defenders could determine who natives are and then not be greifing.

I still fail to see how kicking natives in ANY way assists in an invasion.
An invasion, no. But if you inted to occupy for a day or two, then its necessary. Any nation with too many endorsements is a threat, they could take over again.

Personally, I really don't see why people bother with passwords. They're not secure enough to offer real safety, and they create an enormous amount of hassle, so why bother?

They would be secure enough to provide security if my idea was followed. Sure, the second update would be the same as it is now, but I could at least sleep for one night!

I still fail to see how kicking natives in ANY way assists in an invasion.
An invasion, no. But if you inted to occupy for a day or two, then its necessary. Any nation with too many endorsements is a threat, they could take over again.

I apologize, I meant to say non-UN natives.

Spoffin:

So, you'd like for a griefer and his crew to sit in a region for 15 days and then be able to clean it out because they're natives? See the problem?

Currently, in order for an invader delegate to gain native status, he/she must have gained enough native endorsements to outnumber the endorsements the native delegate had at the time of invasion.

I dont see the point in allowing invaders to become natives, except to allow the rules to be circumnavigated when it comes to ejections/bans/etc.


Well if you'll permit me Neut, I don't think that would be the case. If a greifer and their crew did indeed sit in a nation for long enough, they would become natives. These guys turn up a couple of months ago, they hang around, post on the Regional messageboard, do some RP, then suddenly, one day, one of them becomes delegate and starts going all Francos on the residents. Now, how do the proposed rules account for this better than having the game define natives? Its possible under both my suggestion and yours, and even the current game rules. Put it another way, how do the mods define natives better than the game could?

Also, if you don't define native accurately, isn't the problem going to be shifted? From "I didn't know about the password" to "I thought I was a native" etc.(bump)

Spoffin, what kind of timeline are we talking?

Say, 60 days to become native?

The whole point is that if a nation has enough endorsements from other natives to hold the delegacy, then that nation would be considered native.

Spoffin, what kind of timeline are we talking?

Say, 60 days to become native?

The whole point is that if a nation has enough endorsements from other natives to hold the delegacy, then that nation would be considered native.

Ofcourse the same would then apply for planted spies as well. I know I've got nations hanging around in regions for far longer than 60 days. (try 6 months+) Regarding them to be native seems to me to be against the spirit of gameplay as I see it. Invaders (defenders included) should never become native to a region without the consent of the 'actual' natives.

Ballotonia

Spoffin, what kind of timeline are we talking?

Say, 60 days to become native?

The whole point is that if a nation has enough endorsements from other natives to hold the delegacy, then that nation would be considered native.

Ofcourse the same would then apply for planted spies as well. I know I've got nations hanging around in regions for far longer than 60 days. (try 6 months+) Regarding them to be native seems to me to be against the spirit of gameplay as I see it. Invaders (defenders included) should never become native to a region without the consent of the 'actual' natives.

Ballotonia

Which was exactly the reason we allowed the 'invader' to become 'native' once they had gained the Natives' support...

Spoffin, what kind of timeline are we talking?

Say, 60 days to become native?

The whole point is that if a nation has enough endorsements from other natives to hold the delegacy, then that nation would be considered native.Would be considered a native delegate. You don't say how you become natives in the first place.

Spoffin, what kind of timeline are we talking?

Say, 60 days to become native?

The whole point is that if a nation has enough endorsements from other natives to hold the delegacy, then that nation would be considered native.

Ofcourse the same would then apply for planted spies as well. I know I've got nations hanging around in regions for far longer than 60 days. (try 6 months+) Regarding them to be native seems to me to be against the spirit of gameplay as I see it. Invaders (defenders included) should never become native to a region without the consent of the 'actual' natives.

Ballotonia

Which was exactly the reason we allowed the 'invader' to become 'native' once they had gained the Natives' support...Again, is this "native" as opposed to "invader" or "Native delegate" as opposed to "Invader delegate"? Do you become native if you're not the delegate by having people already in the region vouch for you?

Good GOD...how many times must I define Native?

Native = member of the invaded region at time of invasion, provided said nation is not in the region primarily to assist in the invasion thereof.


Ya know, this would all be a whole lot easier if my simple 'Play Nice' were sufficient. Too bad it's not, huh?

Your team didn't keep score in it's Little League games did it?

Just to be clear, that's 20 UN native ejections, right? An infinite number of counter-invaders can still be ejected, correct?Yes.

That was a point of considerable confusion, glad it is cleared up. This is mostly fine, quite possibly completely fair, have to see how it plays out.



So, the ruling is that it's 20 nations who are in the UN at any given time? Are you going to be that precise before deleting a delegate? Because it doesn't matter if the delegate is doing the bookkeeping if the mods aren't.It's not 20 at any given time - it's 20 since the invasion began. And yes, if you eject the same nation twice it counts as two ejections. [/quote]

I don’t see where this makes any sense what-so-ever. They are already allowed back in the region, can’t be banned. I think laws should exist to protect, not for any other reason. What is the purpose of this, if I may ask?


I like these rules. They are simple and to the point. And they are basically a formal statement of Mercian operational procedures anyway

Very convenient that the antis got to write the invader rules. And to think, some people actually thought the mods would make a sincere attempt at this. :roll:


I actually think this is amazing, the most input we have EVER been allowed in rulemaking. That said, I agree it feels like only an afterward. I honestly feel that mods are doing there best to make the rules fair, to build the community up again though I do think it is more then odd that there has yet to be seen a need for invader input on a mod level. That is, of course, an entirely different subject, though, and I do go back to the point that this is a good first step.


I like these rules. They are simple and to the point. And they are basically a formal statement of Mercian operational procedures anyway

Very convenient that the antis got to write the invader rules. And to think, some people actually thought the mods would make a sincere attempt at this. :roll:

This would be accurate if Tactical Grace had any input at all in these rules...

It’s a shame that he doesn’t, and a shame that invaders don’t. Feels a bit like old men making abortion laws. Yeah, you might be able to dissect the subject, but without being either side there is some context that you may be losing. Still, another topic altogether.




Firstly, [violet], thank you for entering the discussion- your perspective is always refreshing. Now:

]
Or we could introduce "endorsement smashing," a Regional Control feature that would allow the UN Delegate to cancel the endorsements of another nation in the same region. As a purely political tool, it would mean ejections could become a solely administrative tool, with punishments for Delegates who use it otherwise. This would mean no nation need be thrown out of his region, but might create more work for Mods in determining when an ejection was legal and when it wasn't. It also doesn't have quite the same zing to it as an ejection, so may not please invaders.



I would need to see more examples of exactly what this means, and how this plays out (some war games perhaps, just to see how it would work) but I really, really like this. Really, the main reason we ever kick anyone out is to protect the region. We like having people in the region, as long as we can protect it as a holding. People in the region make the region, and the game, fun. This seems to be one of the better suggestions I have seen. What is the likelihood of this?


There's a lot of talk about making sure the game is fun for everyone, and since invaders are legal players, they should also be included.

So how's about you stop bitching and come up with your own proposed ruleset?

There is absolutely no need to be rude about it.

My dad always said it was better shut up and have people think you are a fool, then to open your mouth and let them know that you are a fool. I disagree with him, and obviously do the mods or else this subject would not have been broached. If you ask for opinions, bear them and respond if you can/want to/will. Just my opinion I know, but I think beachcomber has been rational and informative to his belief, even if you don’t agree with him. True, he is a bit cantankerous at times maybe but if you have a problem with an individual point he raises quote it, make your point, and he will likely respond personally to you. No reason to get defensive just because he disagrees, yo.



]If we're going to seriously try and do something about this issue, the goal needs to be something more than "make invasions harder for legal invaders". The mods have been trying that for months, and all it does is suck for legal invaders.

This is one part of your argument I don't quite understand, this idea that life is painfully hard for invaders. It seems to me that the ruleset allows you to smash into a region and grab power easily enough, providing you have the numbers. It only governs behaviour when you start taking extreme measures like ejecting residents and password-protecting the region.

Then I don’t think you understand the dynamic at all, which is frustrating. I’m not arguing (nor are others) that invasions should be easy, and I can say that most of the comments by those I sometimes invade with says virtually the same thing—yeah, the rules are hoops for invaders and should be. The problem is when rules actually go about making a game not a game—handing the win to one side or another without any sort of complexity. Natives should have home field advantage, no kidding. Likely, Antis will game such an advantage. However, rules that step over the bounds of game-sense only encroach the game’s potential.

What you don’t understand is that it is no longer a game against playing V natives. At this point, and likely into the future, it is a matter on how this game is to be played against Defenders. For the most part, objections aren’t—how are we to play against natives of the region we choose to invade, it how do we structure rules that may favor Anti (defenders) without playing by rules that make invasions an impossibility.




First off,
as I understand the population breaks down to
75% Dont cares who just log in answer their issues and go away.
15% RPers
5% Invaders
5% Defenders.

now the 75% dont speak, so you cannot consider their opinion in the big blanket "most of the folks dont like invasions" crowd.
They often do if they get invaded, and in my experience most of them don't like it.

Maybe they shouldn’t agree to the rules, which mention invasions.


Rules Regarding Mods:
•Any moderator found deliberatly exploiting these rules to his/her region and/or cause's best interests will lose moderator status.
•Any moderator purposefully allowing actions in violation of this rule will lose moderator status.
•Any moderator deliberatly baiting, tempting or attempting to cause a rule violation, from deleting a password request to impersonating a nation, will lose moderator status.
•Any moderator deliberatly using his/her status as moderator to deliberatly bend open-end rules in his/her interests will lose moderator status.
•Any moderator caught deliberatly abusing his/her powers as moderator will lose moderator status.
•Moderators may align themselves as defenders or invaders, however may not act on those aligments (i.e. favouring a defender by moving the update back, ecetera) on penalty of loss of moderator priveleges.


You think this isn't already the case?

Hell, I trust mods but I can’t see the harm of making mod rules quite specific, can you?

Also, you asked for people to quit bitching and come up with a ruleset. You only copies the part of this about mods, and ignored the rest. I understand, you are likely as busy as the other humans who play this game (glad I don’t have to worry about that), but if you actually want a ruleset suggested, I would hope that you would be less single-minded when a rule-set is put up. You don’t have to agree with it, just saying….



Here's something we've been kicking around for a while.

I'm not even sure that it's a good idea, and it might put the final nail in the coffin of legit invasions, but it's something to think about, so in the interests of open discussion, I'll submit it for comment:

What if after X days, a delegate of a founderless region became founder?


Not a bad idea, really. It would also allow us to no longer have to try and figure out if Region B's request for a Founder is an "extraordinary" case or not. I'm thinking 30 days would probably be a good threshold. If the invaders can hold the region for 30 days, it's obvious that they're serious about it, but it still gives natives more than enough time muster a recovery.

And, in regions that don't want a Founder (ie: Spoffin letting his Founder puppet die), they could have the Delegateship shift, or it might be possible to code a little checkbox that the Delegate can access if they don't want to become the Founder.?

I agree, this sound like a very interesting idea. It certainly doesn’t intrinsically favore invaders, and I do find something fair about this. Most importantly, it likely enforces some aspects of this whole ordeal as a game.


Your team didn't keep score in it's Little League games did it?

Been to a couple of LL games lately, fun, no?

It would also allow us to no longer have to try and figure out if Region B's request for a Founder is an "extraordinary" case or not.
Exactly. Anything that cuts down on the animosity between mods and players is a good thing. You can just explain how they can get themselves their own founder. (They can already do this, of course, but this is less stressful than creating a new region.)

If the invaders can hold the region for 30 days, it's obvious that they're serious about it, but it still gives natives more than enough time muster a recovery.
Right. And as Neut has pointed out many times, despite the fact that this is a game and all games are based on conflict, he considers minimizing conflict to be more important than following stated rules.

So, past the 30 day mark, anyone who's still fighting with the invaders is choosing conflict, and has nothing to complain about. The path of peace is obviously to move to a different region that they will hopefully put more effort into protecting next time.

Invasions are a part of the game, yes, but if there are absolutely no consequences, then there's little reason for anyone to actually take part.

If the invaders want to "move on", then why do they care what happens to the region after they leave?
How would you feel if any time you won anything, the opponent said "Ha ha, I only let you win."?

Even if you know it isn't true, it's the sort of thing that can get around...and in a game like this, reputation and honor are important things. Worth fighting over. Ask anyone who RPs.

If the goal is to take the region, celebrate, and leave, how do defenders factor in?
Why would you even need defenders if that were actually the goal?

Why would invaders bother if the net result was only saying "Ha ha, remember those couple of hours we pwned you? That was awesome!"?

There are other elements to invasions that are much more important than being sure a bunch of people managed to stay awake until 5am one night.

You might as well ask "why does anyone RP a war, if wars don't really exist in the game"?

These guys turn up a couple of months ago, they hang around, post on the Regional messageboard, do some RP, then suddenly, one day, one of them becomes delegate and starts going all Francos on the residents.
Note that this involves the "invaders" becoming a part of a region. At one time or another everyone who wishes to become delegate of any region is an "invader". If "natives" choose a poor leader, then they get what they asked for. (Believe me, I live in the USA and know what this is like.)

This game is political as much as anything else, and it's not like deceitful politicians are rare in the real world.

Such "invaders" are contributing to a vibrant and interesting game. A region full of political turmoil and intrigue is fun. And if that's too spicy for you, you can always move to a safe region. Or, you can do what 95% of all players do...fight back.

Personally, I really don't see why people bother with passwords.
As Fist One pointed out, they are certainly useless in their current (and proposed) incarnations. This seems to be by design. The original rules made more sense, in that they protected the native's right to live in their home region, whereas the new rules seem to be designed explicitly to allow defenders to have unfettered access to invaded regions.

The whole point is that if a nation has enough endorsements from other natives to hold the delegacy, then that nation would be considered native.
But you still can't satisfactorily define the term "native". I know you've repeated your definition in this thread, but it again falls back on a mod decision, which some players do not believe to be fair, particularly when you have implied that "spies" are legal.

Is this just another thing you'd like to be legal in name only?

If you give players tools to defend themselves (ie, clearly-stated rules) then you allow good players to chart their own destiny. Lousy players might suffer setbacks, but the penalty for sucking at a game is that you don't always win.

"Oh, Johnny? Yeah, he has no backhand, so if you hit to his left side, we'll just give him the game. Play nice."

Wouldn't it be better to give Johnny a free copy of "Better Backhands in 30 Days" than to endlessly mother him and frustrate his more skilled opponents?

I still fail to see how kicking [non-UN] natives in ANY way assists in an invasion.
Again, either you're ignoring the obvious, you're simply not very well-versed in tactics (which would again highlight the need for more invader insight amongst the moderators), or you just didn't read this thread.

A non-UN native is safe only until they join the UN. Puppets and plants can be put in place to exploit this loophole. And there are, of course, the other explanations offered in this thread.

If you're trying to create this loophole on purpose, well, then OK, chalk up yet another rule designed to thwart invaders...nothing new there.

But don't deny what you're actually doing. Have the balls to say it out loud.

Anyway, the idea of "endorsement smashing" sounds promising, but it very much depends on how it's implemented. If it's a serious consideration, I'd like to hear some more details regarding how it would work.

Obviously, if mods are going to impose a bunch of artificial (and subjective) limitations on its use, then it's not really going to solve anything.

Good GOD...how many times must I define Native?

Native = member of the invaded region at time of invasion, provided said nation is not in the region primarily to assist in the invasion thereof.


Ya know, this would all be a whole lot easier if my simple 'Play Nice' were sufficient. Too bad it's not, huh?What if they are "secondarily" in the region? A spy for a third party, or a dormant puppet of one of the invaders. Is an invader/occupier a native when a counter-invasion takes place? Is someone who had previously been a native in the region but wasn't at the exact time of the invasion?

Neut, I'm sorry that I'm causing you pain here, but the rules aren't as transparent to everyone as you think they are.

These guys turn up a couple of months ago, they hang around, post on the Regional messageboard, do some RP, then suddenly, one day, one of them becomes delegate and starts going all Francos on the residents.
Note that this involves the "invaders" becoming a part of a region. At one time or another everyone who wishes to become delegate of any region is an "invader". If "natives" choose a poor leader, then they get what they asked for. (Believe me, I live in the USA and know what this is like.)

That was exactly my point; that invaders can already do this by becoming members of the region, so how does the game defining native make any difference?

That was exactly my point; that invaders can already do this by becoming members of the region, so how does the game defining native make any difference?
I think we're on the same page here.

We know what Neut thinks the rules are, but in practice they are simply "anyone who Neut says is a native is a native".

If you lose an argument with Neut (or he just declares himself to be the victor), then the truth is irrelevant.

An impartial mechanism should make the call.

As I said earlier, if you've been in a region for X days, participated in local politics, affected the outcome of the elections, you and your allies are actually the dominant political force, etc., in what way are you not a native, in fact, in what way are you not the very heart of the region?

Alright Beachcomber. I already said enough with the personal attacks.

You focus on what you want for invaders to be allowed to do. I focus on what I'd like to see griefers not be able to do. Just because we dont agree does not make me biased against invaders.


As for the definition of 'native', a native is any nation not associated with invaders (defenders are included as invaders here, as always) in the region at time of invasion (special cases such as recruiting from a feeder region at the moment of invasion would still qualify as native). Thus, any invader/defender is non-native. Thus, spies are legal, but are not granted native status - they remain an invader. Otherwise, the whole native rule would be pointless as invaders could inflitrate the region, and then just suddenly all switch their endorsements to the last one to enter...the invasion technically didnt start till the endorsement switching happened - but that doesnt mean the invaders are natives.

Natives are not chosen at my whim, rather, they are the permanent residents of a region - those nations that are there not because of an invasion, but because that is where they call home. The Mods all think this to be fair. We'd prefer to be able to code it into the game directly, but, to be honest, it isn't possible. It is, and will always be a judgement call. No matter what rule we make, there will be exceptions, so we'd prefer to judge each on a case-by-case basis.





As I recall, little league was supposed to be all about the game - how you played, not whether you won or lost. 'Play nice' is a simple concept, and yet so difficult to maintain. If everyone played nice we wouldnt need rules, to define natives, to set passwords, and to have founders, etc.

However, there are people out there who dont play nice, who are in it just to destroy what someone else has built. And to deny them the ability to do so, we Mods and Admin have created rules, and defined natives, and added passwords and founders, etc.

Good GOD...how many times must I define Native?

Native = member of the invaded region at time of invasion, provided said nation is not in the region primarily to assist in the invasion thereof.


Ya know, this would all be a whole lot easier if my simple 'Play Nice' were sufficient. Too bad it's not, huh?


The exact rule I follow on my invasions, I got it right without even readin any rules. Wow.


-----------------
Kwas out.

http://www.laogaming.com/images/russ/programming.jpg (http://www.laogaming.com/forums)

Hey Neut, have you or anyone else considered, that if the Invaders were treated Fairly, they would play nice.
You know treaded as equals not as the dirty cousins from the old country.

Hey Neut, have you or anyone else considered, that if the Invaders were treated Fairly, they would play nice.
You know treaded as equals not as the dirty cousins from the old country.Loop, be calm. Invaders are treated well enough if they follow the rules. The problem that we're debating here is whether the rules themselves are fair, but the fact is that, fair or not, some people don't obey them. They're not objecting to the rules, they're just breaking them.

Example please of an instance where the rules were not broken but invaders still were treated unfairly in your opinion.

Example please of an instance where the rules were not broken but invaders still were treated unfairly in your opinion.


Athiest Empire

I already said enough with the personal attacks.
I'm not attacking you.

Just because we dont agree does not make me biased against invaders.
I don't object to the fact that you disagree with me, I object to your obvious bias.

We'd prefer to be able to code it into the game directly, but, to be honest, it isn't possible.
What does Max prefer? I think it's worth thinking outside the box on this one, since it would free up the mods to spend more time catching actual cheaters and would add a new dimension to the game. Shaking things up a little can be good.

What you want to prevent is natives getting unfairly screwed, but you can't ensure that nothing bad ever happens to them as long as invasions are legal.

Example please of an instance where the rules were not broken but invaders still were treated unfairly in your opinion.
Another example is the recent deletion (and subsequent reinstatement) of the invader delegate of United States. To be fair, the mod apologized, but it still terminated the invasion, and rewarded known cheaters.

There are other examples as well.

And the invaders weren't just treated unfairly in the opinion of the invaders, the mods have said as much as well. In the case of Atheist Empire, Neut acknowledged that the invaders broke no rules and that the natives broke just about every one in the book, but he still said it didn't matter to him. This sort of thing is the basis for my statements.

My claims of bias are based on a long-term pattern of actual mod actions. I'm not some mindless mod-hater, I'm just someone who's witnessed the inequity many times.

OK...worst case scenario...a bunch of mean old invaders exploit the system and take over a region from within. So what? What's the big deal?

They can't mass eject natives. They can't spam the region. They can't do any number of other things that are defined as "griefing" on any given day.

So, seriously, what is the problem?

The residents of the region have to make a choice of what to do, which can be any number of things, including ignoring the delegate entirely.

Why the fuss?

Just to make a point, all the invaders posting here do of course realize that they are being added to a secret list much like the one oft touted my Senator Macarthy.

Interestingly enough, Macarthys "list" was originally just a Dramatic Braggarts Lie told before a group of Old women and a Luncheon speach, when he was taken seriously he realized it was his claim to fame so he rode that pony for all it was worth, hoping for a white house bid. Fortunantly he was too stupid to actually be able to pull it off.

Just to make a point, all the invaders posting here do of course realize that they are being added to a secret list much like the one oft touted my Senator Macarthy..

If we're making any such list, no one's told me about it.

It's that big "THE LIST" sticky on the real forum 7.

Just to make a point, all the invaders posting here do of course realize that they are being added to a secret list much like the one oft touted my Senator Macarthy..

If we're making any such list, no one's told me about it.

No not you or the mods, anti invaders is who I meant.

*looks up from her notepad*

there's no list :twisted:

I think Crazy means to say, we're ticking off names on our list rather then adding to it. It’s in its Ninth Edition and a best seller in the Pacific.

I was going to say I resent the McCarthyism parallel but he has an Irish surname so I’ll accept the association.

How about adding the rule: "All invasions must be temporary in nature."

One might even set a maximum duration for an invasion?

Ballotonia

How about adding the rule: "All invasions must be temporary in nature."

One might even set a maximum duration for an invasion?

Ballotonia

That was the idea behind limiting ejections...it definately puts a limit on an invasion, but by no means set a specific time length. If you can hold a region for a year without making more than 20 ejections, great. Maybe you could only hold it for a day, regardless, it still left that somewhat open...

How about adding the rule: "All invasions must be temporary in nature."

One might even set a maximum duration for an invasion?

Ballotonia

Because that is inherently unfair, Neut stated the perfect response though,

It would also allow us to no longer have to try and figure out if Region B's request for a Founder is an "extraordinary" case or not.Exactly. Anything that cuts down on the animosity between mods and players is a good thing. You can just explain how they can get themselves their own founder. (They can already do this, of course, but this is less stressful than creating a new region.) If the invaders can hold the region for 30 days, it's obvious that they're serious about it, but it still gives natives more than enough time muster a recovery.Right. And as Neut has pointed out many times, despite the fact that this is a game and all games are based on conflict, he considers minimizing conflict to be more important than following stated rules. So, past the 30 day mark, anyone who's still fighting with the invaders is choosing conflict, and has nothing to complain about. The path of peace is obviously to move to a different region that they will hopefully put more effort into protecting next time. Invasions are a part of the game, yes, but if there are absolutely no consequences, then there's little reason for anyone to actually take part. I think this is very smart. Great suggestions, likely won’t happen though.





Example please of an instance where the rules were not broken but invaders still were treated unfairly in your opinion.

Athiest Empire

There are more examples, but that was one of the clearest ones. I don’t know how much fairness invaders are going to be granted, if all of the moderators are deficit on experience to invader issues. I am not implying mods are ignorant, or they don’t understand aspects of invasions, clearly—they simply lack perspective in some of these issues, and I don’t think that can be argued out. That has nothing to do with character or a lack of trying, I think a sensitivity to native needs first (before sometimes considering the other side) is the general problem. For this reason, I’ll go ahead and through in the US, though that was somewhat corrected (a day late, however) and apologized for.


How about adding the rule: "All invasions must be temporary in nature."

One might even set a maximum duration for an invasion?

Ballotonia

Because it is right for the rules to give the natives all the tools and the advantages. It is wrong for the rules to play the game for them.



That said, I’ll have to look later for a notice—I hope that Max changes servers soon. I wrote out comments for page 8, then the server timed out every time I tried to go to this last page, thus this response took a couple of days to do. Grrr.

For examples of unfairness and moderator bias, look at what happened in A Liberal Haven and later in DEN; both operations conducted by the region of DEN.

In ALH, the nation of Rarely Steamboats was appointed the raider-delegate. He ejected a single nation (the old delegate,) and immediately sent this inactive nation an invitation to return and the new password. RS forgot to remove him from the ban list. What was the mod's response to this?

Deletion of RS' nation, voiding of the operation and removal of password protection. The mod called this "griefing." Indeed.

Another example is the recent events in DEN. The founder nation was deleted after being unfairly accused of being a multi (the mods had evidence to the contrary, but did not choose to accept it.) The mod responsible also provided the password to DEN to our region's most hostile rival--Founder Grub in 10K. This was done in response to Grub's improper deletion by the mods after being accused by RS of spamming. If anyone wishes to challenge the notion that certain mods are biased against raiders, simply read the "A Quick Question about Raids, Sort of..." thread in this chamber. Note the response of the mod to Founder Grub's reinstatement, and how quickly Grub's nation was reinstated (less than 24 hours.) The DEN founder appealed his deletion more than a week ago without ANY response.

So much for moderator objectivity.

16 MAY 04--2004 GLOBAL SUMMIT SUCCESSFULLY CONCLUDES!!
[From the Wire Service] The 2004 Global Summit on Raiderplay and Defensive Operations was a rousing success. After attendance and participation by many of the major raider and defender alliances as well as many independent, growing regions and alliances, a tentative accord was reached through cooperation and input by the attending delegates. The following Global Summit Accord is being submitted for review and adoption by each of the participating alliances and regions:

Issue 1: Espionage As a Function of Gameplay: Espionage will be allowed to continue in its current form. The vast majority of delegates agreed to a ban on all non-military espionage and any form of espionage designed to secure regional leadership or impact the internal politics of the target region. This matter has been tabled pending further review by TITO and the ADN.

Issue 2: Professionalism During Gameplay:
All participating allliances and regions agree to state publically that raiderplay is authorized under the current NationStates rules. Defender organizations may publically denounce the the practice, but may not insult or otherwise demean raider regions or organizations which engage in the practice. TITO reserves the right to refer to the practice as "immoral," and to label those engaging in the practice as "invaders." Raider regions and organizations may refer to TITO as "Hall Monitors." No other form of detrimental or derrogatory terms are allowed.

Issue 3: Self-Liberation of Acquired Regions:

a. Target regions that do not include UN-Delegate nations (i.e., non-UN regions) may be acquired by raider organizations for training purposes only. These regions must be relinquished within 48 hours of the UN update appointing the raider delegate.

b. Target regions which are acquired may secure their liberation by demonstrating ongoing activity of at least 20% of their native UN-Delegate nations during the period of the occupation. Once a region is acquired, the raider delegate must immediately post a statement regarding the last known period of activity of all native UN nations on the Regional Message Board for public viewing. No other posts by raider forces are allowed on the RMB until the first native or defender organization acknowledges review of the information. This acknowledgement must occur immediately following the acquisition by any defender nation online at the time of the acquisition and following the activity post by the raider delegate.

c. Acquired regions which cannot show the required activity levels may be colonized by raider organizations without prospective interference by defender organizations. Acquired regions meeting the activity requirement will be released by the raider delegate within 48 hours of verification of such native activity by the observing defender organization, and will be removed from the Global Target List.

Issue 4: Spamming and Sweeping During Gameplay:
Defender and raider organizations will refrain from spamming the RMB's of home and colony regions during missions. This includes use of nations to clear the regional activity registers of home and colony regions. Raider and defender organizations will refrain from posting sensitive information on home and colony RMB's during missions which may be used to harass, annoy, invade or otherwise molest the home or colony regions.

Issues 5 & 6: NS-Mod Reports and Review of Alleged Violations of the GS Accord: Defender and raider organizations agree to address alleged violations of NS rules and this Accord occuring during missions in a neutral forum prior to the submission of any reports or complaints to NS Hosts. This issue was approved by the majority of participating delegates, but is awaiting further review by the ADN and TITO.

The tentative Global Summit Accord, if adopted, will be a landmark agreement in the history of NationStates. All attending delegates expressed satisfaction with the Global Summit, and were enthusiastic about the progress made. For more information, please visit the Global Summit forum at http://globalsummit.proboards3.com/index.cgi.

We will bring you more on this amazing story as it develops.

I think the Mods should have less of a presence,

"Takes out war medals and puts in false teeth"

Back in the good old days when nation states was relatively new I remember it being alot more fun.You had legends of Great Region crashers such as Sythia and the original antis such as OCP fighting it out in epic conflicts.Now it just seems that if one side can't hack it they call the mods.

I dont think the Mods should be told first,that will just make them too involved and lets be honest give them work they could do without.Im a mod on another game and luckily its more rp based but honestly I would hate for more inane complaints.

Heres what Id do.

Every nation that invades has to be a UN member to be useful.If they grief once just ban them permantly from joining the UN.As in IP ban them permantly from joining it.

That way region crashers will have a sort of license to invade,if they abuse the rules it will lead to it being permanently revoked.That should cut down alot of the donkey work for the mods and also should cut down complaints as Crashers will bear in mind the conscequences alot more.This should be more effective than nation deletion as often they just come back and IP banning them from the game totaly will be a bit too harsh.

Anti's should also be subject to the same rules,if they breach advertising protocol spam they should also be IP banned from the UN.

This should create an envitronment where the rule are enforced but theres more room for a balanced conflict in which legends such as OCP,Sythia,Nasal Pie,Papal Nations,Savage Lands and the lords of conquest

Sythia?

Oh, right... that "great" invader who used UN Multis to grief regions, and then spammed the forums when their refusal to follow the most basic of rules got them deleted...

I dont actualy think he ever used multies but if he did yeah he should have been punished for that.However the fact remains that even if he did use multies (which I don't think he did) he was a legend and what made it better was that he was defeated by another nation without the mods help,that being OCP.It made the game really enjoyable.


I have been playing this game for a year and a half now and I have to tell you its starting to get dull.The fact was yes we hated Sythia,he crashed my region but you dont know a good enemy untill their gone,when he was defeated by OCP and the Imperial Empire collapsed it was a great day.If the mods come down to heavy on crashers then it will become to one sided.

If you use the UN membership as a license then crashers will stick by the rules and so will the defenders.Mods will get less work.The two sides will balance out and it will turn into a good honest friendly rivalry.
Besides what do ya think of Using the UN as a sort of crashers license,I think it would cut griefing and alot of your work down very quickly.

Crashers grief permantly banned from the UN
can never crash again
They will install self discipline into their methods so they can carry on
Mods will get involved less


We need the space to create legends in Nationstates again we dont have either on the good side or the bad side at the moment.

We use to have OCP V Sythia,the anti lobster society,rogue empire now with perhaps the exception of Franco's Spain versus everyone we have no Infamous rivalries.No goody v baddy spaghetti western showdowns.

Give them some breathing space by forcing them to discipline themselves

If this has been covered I apologise ahead of time.

I would like thoughts on this situation that affected me. I think these events should be reviewed and something decided on them so other regions don't go through this.

Region A is invaded (No Founder). The invaders are able to gain a one endorsement lead on the native choice for delegate and wins. Invaders win this round. Well, what turns out is the person that won is a multi. Mod action: He is deleted and 3 or 4 of his endorsers are ejected from the un. Then the region is opened up to everyone and the delegate spot is left empty. Advantage Invaders, the ones that cheated. The remaining invaders are allowed more time to get more people. Yeah the natives can try and find allies but in this situation they are in poor position, defenders strength is in the Delegates position, not in numbers usually. This didn't seem like a fair and balanced fix. If the invading nations cheated to win. Shouldn't they have all been ejected from the region and the legitimate nation given the delegates spot? Or at least time for the region to regroup and establish a delegate without invader interference.

Mind you as this played out this happened a second time, a group of invaders endorsed an, at the time and currently inactve, invader delegate, defeating the natives chosen delegate again. The leader of this group got himself elected after, but he was then deleted much of his supporters ejected from the un for being multis. After this The remaining Invaders were able to scramble enough votes to keep us out since we were becoming more scattered as this went on. Hell even at this point, shouldn't something be done? One suggestion I made was making a native a founder since the region had none, he would know who to deal with and how to deal with it leaving the mods to do there splendid work elsewhere it is needed.

Now the second part of my thoughts: Should a invading nation that is inactive be allowed to hold the delegates spot? one reason for giving him endorsements is maximizing their vote total, since he won't be endorsing others and keeping the natives out of the spot. IN Region A's case he has been elected twice not active once during reign..going on 7th day of inactivity. I thought I saw somewhere this was illegal, but the forums being what they are I couldn't find it again.


Thanks for your time.

so the question is How do you invade?

My biggest problem with the new rules is the relentless persecution of those who endorse delegates who then go on to cheat.

Was present recently with War-Is-Good, a country who failed to telegram the password to natives. Me and several others were subsequently expelled from the UN for endorsing him. But I'd been inactive all day, because I'm in the UK and can only log onto the internet after 6:00pm GMT.

Can't mods persecute the cheating delegate only, and just send the people endorsing him to the rejected realms to cool their heels?

sounds good but their are two problems. the telegraming of the password will take to long so you should find another way to take care of that. also i think that you should be able to ask permission to bend the rules a bit. but other than that it might work.

A lot of the invader stuff can be circumvented by teh founder because even if they are banned, they can return the favour and grief by booting the invaders and restoring the natives.

so what are the basic rules going to be except those already stated on the top of this thread?

This clarification of native/non-native should IMHO also be in the new ruleset.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6674314

Ballotonia

What If the region is new and has less than ten people? How many can be kicked out?

I think it is helping the "Natives" than the "Invaders"

Might I recommend that you contact the major invader regions in NS and request their rules of ettiquete (sp?)

I know many regions are now forming their own rules of conduct. Perhaps by gathering the RoC from the different major Invaders, you can come up with an uniform CoC (Code of Conduct) for all Invaders, instead of just slapping in new rules as you come across them.

Really, all the mods would have to do is cut and paste what does and doesn't work.

Anyways, just my own 2 cents.

I don't always check my tgms as I should, but that said I certainly offer my perspective if an invader has a question. I am not a mod, and will not attest to know every nuiance, tho I do try to make it a habit of keeping up with rules as best I can.

I agree. As the delegate from an invader region i can make the credible suggestion that the majority of invader groups do follow the moderator set game rules for invading, however often will ellaborate or alter said rules in accordance with their specific etiquette. For example, the two halves that make up my region are military and politicaly dominated. What this entails is that our regional constitution affects our military conductions. We treat our foregin policies as we would our internal ones, and therefore conduct within acceptable measures when invading. We generally leave regions after a few days of occupation, for the natives.
Most will play by the book, albeit their won 'revised' book. ;)

Got a question.

What if the INVADER DELEGATE sends the password to all the Members of the nation,but the members delete the telegram in which the INVADER DELEGATE tells them the password and then complain to the mods that they didn't recieve a telegram from the INVADER DELEGATE???

Duz the INVADER DELEGATE get banned???

Got a question.

What if the INVADER DELEGATE sends the password to all the Members of the nation,but the members delete the telegram in which the INVADER DELEGATE tells them the password and then complain to the mods that they didn't recieve a telegram from the INVADER DELEGATE???

Duz the INVADER DELEGATE get banned???

Nope, Mods check for that. Also, lying to the mods in an attempt to get someone else undeservedly punished is a deletable offense in and of itself. Any native who would try such a scam just might end up finding itself on the receiving end of a DEAT instead...

Ballotonia

I've just read this whole topic so forgive me for addled details.

I know one of the invaders commented about the lack of respect invaders are shown by the mods.

And while some people are arguing about the hurt feelings of the invaders and the mean nasty old Mods who are biased against raiders, only the Mods seem to be thinking about another side of this.

I am the delegate of a region that lost its Founder unexpectedly, last spring. (Before any raiders start drooliing, he's back.) Then we were raided. We got through that, and then were raided again. Altogether, we were attacked some 6 or 7 times, with 3 successful raids. We had no time to recover from one raid before the next started. One raid was so bad one of the raiders left and was later found on another region's board, expressing regret for how nastily the whole thing was done. (I'd have been more impressed if the apology had been directly to me and my region, but there ya go.)

We were totally unprepared, and while invaders have structures for teaching how to conduct invasions, and presumably so do defenders, the ordinary player who doesn't want to be annoyed with all that has no easy resources to find what he/she needs to do when the vultures start circling overhead. It's strictly "DIY".

Well, we survived and learned to fend off the invasions. Now, our founder is back. I can hear the invaders and maybe some others saying "See? No harm done!" Not so.

I've lost count of the nations who went inactive and let themselves CTE because they were fed up with invaders. I had the telegrams from them so I know why they did it. They were discouraged and disoriented by it all, and they said so. They didn't blame me; they said they were fed up with "those people", and that the game had been soured for them.

Now, some wiseguy said something about how those of us who don't like invasions knew they were part of the rules, and that if we didn't like it we shouldn't have agreed to the rules. Since when is there an alternative? "I'll play the game but ignore the rules I don't like." Doesn't work does it? Sounds like griefer-logic to me. Normal people don't think like that; we just hope that in a place as big as NS, the idiots will go somewhere else. Anyway, new players don't realize what invading is about until it happens to them. But if we had been asked a lot of us would say, "why don't you invader-defender types go play somewhere else? We aren't here to be your target practice."

Last thing: as for the complaint about invaders not being shown respect, I find that rich coming from an invader. I'm sure what I'm about to say won't be appreciated. Tough. I haven't made it up; it's what I've been told by nations in my own region and by other nations who survived invasions. It's how I feel myself.

What I haven't heard invaders take seriously is this: the act of invasion is itself an act of disrespect. It's a statement along the lines of, "I see you're here minding your own business and having a good time. Well, f*** you, I'm here to get my enjoyment out of spoiling yours!" When you invade, the natives feel you are showing them disrespect. So this bleating about us showing respect to the invaders' point of view is ridiculous.

If you don't show any, why should you expect any?

PS - a telegram I received made me aware that I wasn't clear enough about one thing. My resentment of invaders doesn't extend to defenders. My nation and I are grateful for the work of defenders who enabled us to resume self-government when things were at their worst. In particular, ADN and TITO will be remembered in our region with appreciation for a long time to come.

Invaders, on the other hand ...
:mp5:
:sniper:
:mp5:

I'm still in favor of more liberally handing out founderships.

Ballotonia

I'm verry sorry but many rules are floating around the NationStates world. Could we have a confirmation from the Moderators by giving us a link to the Official Rules of Raiding, the only one The DEN is obliged to follow?

I would like to see the real version, not the draft. Where can I find it?

As posted by Coagitation (I think) in other threads, the real invasion rules: http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=301703

I can't access that thread, unfortunately.

I can't access that thread, unfortunately.

It works perfect for me.

This is what comes out for me :

Grippsholm, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

have you tried creating another account and attempting to access it with that one? or copying/pasting the url?

I can't open that link too.


You are not authorized to view this page
You might not have permission to view this directory or page using the credentials you supplied.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you believe you should be able to view this directory or page, please try to contact the Web site by using any e-mail address or phone number that may be listed on the www.forums.jolt.co.uk home page.

You can click Search to look for information on the Internet.




HTTP Error 403 - Forbidden
Internet Explorer

that's really weird... i'm sure there's some simple cause/olution... i'll mirror it on my site when I get back home (college right now)

Here's two posts of interests from that thread, this links to a page that links to both: http://www.dewknight.com/ns/index.html

The second post is of great relevance, thank you.

However, the first one, as interesting as it might be, was not written by a Moderator and thus, defenders can find loopholes in it and say, it's not official.

Is there no a big, official, invading FAQ for all raiders written by a Game Moderator we could consult? If not, perhaps it is something that should be done?

Thank you for your aid btw.

That has been edited by moderators to try and keep it accurate... I believe that is the closest thing to any official rules, which I don't believe are written down anywhere, so that the moderators can change their minds and the "rules" whenever they want.

I don't think that's why, but sometimes things need to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Well, perhaps what we need are some official rules in some cases. I think a lot of the problem is left by too much ambiguity. It leads to a misunderstanding of the rules, and then people wind up getting in trouble for not knowing what is right and wrong.

True things are handled on a case by case basis, and where applicable then that should also be stated as well. Perhaps we need another discussion on specific rules, and to make sure that they are fair for both sides, not just invaders or defenders.

Alright, I've just scanned through this thread and picked up on some things and whatnot, but, is the definitions in the first post considered rule? Or are they simply guidlines that the moderators go by? A set list of rules that dictate how invasions and defendings can, and can't be run and stuck to them. This way invaders and defenders would have nothing to complain about. Any chance that can happen anytime soon?

-Hrmmm

I don't think that's why, but sometimes things need to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

I find it strange to be agreeing with PH, however she is right that judges do need wiggle room. Unfortunately right now all we have is a case by case basis and there is a massive variance of tolerance in each case. I don't think the rules put forth in this thread are necessarily the best, but it's high time we actually had something more than the vaguest guidelines. There should be a medium between written rule law and the Mod's discretion to decide how to apply it on a case by case basis. Right now all we have are each Mod's individual decisions on loaded terms such as 'greifing'. All due respect to the Mods, but I've seen wildly different interpretations of what constitutes griefing in my NS time (in cases where invader/defender bias was NOT at issue). The rules listed in this thread would be a good start towards having some kind of guidelines for an invader who doesn't want to be deleted.

Just my 2 shekels :)

Since these draft rules were never made official (at least I haven't noticed any post to that effect in all the months I've kept an eye on this thread. Of course I might have overlooked it.), wouldn't it be better to not have it stickied? I've noticed that a lot of invaders seem to think these are the official rules, which means that they get deleted for e.g banning a native longer than allowed, thinking they're following the rules.

The current rules seems more along the lines of the Big Invasion/Delegate FAQ (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=301703) in the Gameplay forum, while this one just confuses people, sometimes resulting in deletions, which might've been avoided if people were aware that these aren't the official rules.

i agree, even though it does say draftrules in the topic, this sticky still confuses many on both sides, i keep explaining to both invaders and defenders that these rules are not official, and that natives need to be unbanned immediatly, that passwords need to be giving out immediatly, etc..

Just in case my previous post was misunderstood, I and most invaders I know are well aware that these rules have not been put into effect yet. I was merely voicing my suggestion that they ought to be enacted in lieu of the almost total lack of guidelines we currently have.

As far as the thread being stickied, i don't really have an opinion. i don't think it's that confusing, but I also don't think it would be hard to find it below either.

Sticky or not, I think its just about time for a definative set of rules to be set. If loopholes are found(and will happen as people try to beat the rules) those loopholes can be judged on a case by case method as is being done already. I for one and sick of invaders in particular, but also defenders complaining about mod unfairness and the mods did this to me but didn't to that to that other guy. If rules are set in stone, people can't argue about the rules. Plain and simple. But thats just my view on it. Any chance we can get a mods voice on this issue?

Suggested modification to the draft: no ban on ejection of non-UN nations.

But... lots has been argued before, and that too. Perhaps we're waiting on the mods having enough time to handle this properly? Patience...

Ballotonia

This is my opinion, and can be considered or discounted at your leisure. However.

As a non-UN nation, I really have no interest in those players who choose to take the invader/defender path. I'm in the region I joined for role-playing reasons, pure and simple. If my region gets successfully invaded, bully for them. I'm not a part of it one way or another and wish to stay that way.

However, if you eject me because of my close RP ties with a defender or UN native, you will mightily piss me off ICly and OOCly because you'll be dragging me into a fight I want no part of. It's one thing to play the game with willing participants. It's something else to force your notions of "fun" on the unwilling. I call it griefing, intentional or otherwise.

I am therefore in favour of banning the ejection of non-UN natives from a region during an invasion. As with any war, leave the non-combatants out of it. Non-UN natives that spy on invaders for the benefit of the defenders forfeit their non-combatant status, and should be judged according to the same rules as invader spies. That is to say, prove it before you act on it.

Treznor's opinion above makes a big heap o' sense to me. I like invading and it's the fun part of the game for me, but I certainly accept (not really understand b/c NS roleplay puts me to sleep) that others have their own reasons. I think his suggested rule on non-UN's keeps people like him from being to heavily affected by the play of us other types.

What exactly would be the specifications of this change?

It could end up affecting the regions more, because a group will flood a region with their non-UN puppets to clear the happenings, and perhaps have non-UNs move in with them every time they invade, so when they are ejected they have an endless supply of non-UNs sitting in the region to take it again. This could easily result in an endless cycle of invading, and seems to actually tip the scale not just away from defenders, but most of all away from the natives whose regions will be permanently occupied.

I completely understand Trez' reasoning. However, unless there's something to prevent the above described from happening, I would voice strong opposition to the proposed change.

P.S. Pirates Roost, it's not so strange to be agreeing with me here. We're both just players in a game trying to keep things well-balanced and legal. ;)

What exactly would be the specifications of this change?

It could end up affecting the regions more, because a group will flood a region with their non-UN puppets to clear the happenings, and perhaps have non-UNs move in with them every time they invade, so when they are ejected they have an endless supply of non-UNs sitting in the region to take it again. This could easily result in an endless cycle of invading, and seems to actually tip the scale not just away from defenders, but most of all away from the natives whose regions will be permanently occupied.

I completely understand Trez' reasoning. However, unless there's something to prevent the above described from happening, I would voice strong opposition to the proposed change.
In that case you can legitimately describe said non-UN nations as "spies" and eject them.

As I said, I'd rather see proof before invaders/defenders start ejecting non-UN folk. It could also be suggested that in order to be allowed to participate, invaders/defenders must have membership in the UN, thereby giving blanket protection to non-UN nations. Non-UN nations supplying regional passwords to invaders/defenders (i.e. spying) could be subject to punishment.

Just a thought.

As I said, I'd rather see proof before invaders/defenders start ejecting non-UN folk.

And where would this proof come from? Certainly, anyone can fabricate proof. Would the moderators be responsible for ascertaining this proof?

It could also be suggested that in order to be allowed to participate, invaders/defenders must have membership in the UN, thereby giving blanket protection to non-UN nations. Non-UN nations supplying regional passwords to invaders/defenders (i.e. spying) could be subject to punishment.

You might as well just eliminate invading/defending/whatever from the game if that's the way to go. I do a lot more damage with my non-UN "spies" but it's easy to say you're a spy or say you're not a spy without actually be either.

Unless the moderators are willing to keep track of very minute details, such as who's UN nation is doing what in the invader/defender game... I'd say the suggestions of letting non-UN nations be almost exempt from this part of the game is moot.

It's much, much more complicated than just UN puppet v. non-UN puppet. Especially when UN puppets are transferable on a daily average in many invader/defender cases.

And where would this proof come from? Certainly, anyone can fabricate proof. Would the moderators be responsible for ascertaining this proof?I would imagine the people defending/invading would have to prove the existence and activities of spy nations. Proof could come in the form of region activity (like tracking where a nation has come from/is going to, establishing patterns) or telegrams requesting passwords and the like. Difficult? Yes. Impossible? Maybe. But this is about a game, right?

You might as well just eliminate invading/defending/whatever from the game if that's the way to go. I do a lot more damage with my non-UN "spies" but it's easy to say you're a spy or say you're not a spy without actually be either.That honestly wouldn't bother me. I'm sure a lot of people enjoy going through the whole invasion/defense schtick, but a lot more people get rather ticked off at having to deal with it. I know what my own region founder has to say about it. The difficulties of verifying the identities of spies isn't really my concern. My concern is minimising collateral damage. Like the US justice system, I'd rather let a hundred criminals go than convict a single innocent man. And if I get ejected from my region by invaders on the suspicion that I might be a spy even though I'm not a member of the UN and firmly do not participate, you can bet I'm going to be calling for the demise of this brand of "fun."

Unless the moderators are willing to keep track of very minute details, such as who's UN nation is doing what in the invader/defender game... I'd say the suggestions of letting non-UN nations be almost exempt from this part of the game is moot.

It's much, much more complicated than just UN puppet v. non-UN puppet. Especially when UN puppets are transferable on a daily average in many invader/defender cases.The suggestion of requiring UN membership for participation was just that: a suggestion. It would answer my concerns while creating new problems. Whether or not those problems are insurmountable is something that can be explored further. It doesn't have to be Moderators who keep track of minute details, it can be the defenders/invaders themselves who wish to make the accusations. Then all the Moderators have to do is observe the evidence and begin tracking the accused nations in question. I gather that they already have that capacity; this would help narrow their search for troublemakers.

I'm brainstorming here, but ultimately that brainstorming boils down to one thing: let the people play who want to play, and leave alone the people who don't. You could even try instituting a rule that only regions with specific flags in their code (once turned on could not be turned off) or even following specific naming conventions could participate in the naming convention. Yes, that has its own problems, but it would effectively segregate the rest of the people/regions who would just as soon live without it.

It's very selfish of me, I know, but I happen to believe in not spoiling the fun of players who are literally minding their own business.

Understood Treznor, just letting you know how I see it as well. Most of your suggestions, I would think would take quite some time to implement, but I don't know if maybe NS II might even include them or not. Time will tell.

Although since I gather that NS2 is likely to be regulated and balanced more strictly, I wouldn't expect to see any of it. Every game has things some players enjoy that others would just as soon do without. It's the "cooperative" nature of the current system that concerns me. If I can't find a way to cooperate with another players, I'd just as soon ignore them. Invasions increase the risk that I won't be allowed to, and so I speak to that mindset.

As I say, I have nothing against allowing people to play as they wish to play, even if I don't care to participate.

Very, very well said!

...

As I say, I have nothing against allowing people to play as they wish to play, even if I don't care to participate.

Agreed. And I have everything against allowing people to play as they wish, only to find that they won't show me the same courtesy.

I've also read in this thread a comparison between being invaded in NS and paying rent in Monopoly by someone who was either ignoring or was ignorant of the difference between "may" and "must". True, each of these appears in the rules of the respective games. However in NS, invasions "may" occur; in Monopoly, rent "must" be paid. Many of us in NS (75% according to one earlier post) do not wish to be taken by force and made to participate in the invasion scenario.

And why would any decent invader want to force us into their poxy wars? That's like Bruce Lee going to a Quaker meeting house to find his opponents. There are so many competent and eager combatants in the game who are just itching for a chance to do battle with one another, they don't need us if they're really as good as they like to think (and brag) they are.

So how about this? What if we experiment for a period of time with limiting invasions so that they are only legal between the regions held by defenders and those held by invaders? I do not mean allied regions, only participant or "home" regions. Perhaps some of the defenders who only defend because they want to help those of us who get hassled by invaders will decide that they don't want to participate either. In that case, invaders still can invade each other. Now that would be a challenge for them: trying to take a region from people who know and care what's going on.

A bit like what happened when invaders took Celtic Warriors or defenders took The Den. (Of course some kind of exception or other ruling would have to be made about TRR, for the obvious reasons). Let them knock the stuffing out each other on their own home grounds. That way, all the people that think of NS as a war platform can satisfy themselves without being such pains in the a*** to those of us who see it as something else.


Who knows? The idea could take off -- to the great relief of the rest of us. I already like it...

So how about this? What if we experiment for a period of time with limiting invasions so that they are only legal between the regions held by defenders and those held by invaders? I do not mean allied regions, only participant or "home" regions. Perhaps some of the defenders who only defend because they want to help those of us who get hassled by invaders will decide that they don't want to participate either. In that case, invaders still can invade each other. Now that would be a challenge for them: trying to take a region from people who know and care what's going on.Unfortunately, I believe that Max Barry (the Great God Hisself) has decided that Invasion/Defense is a legitimate part of the game. While I don't see the allure myself, this is his baby. I don't think we're going to be allowed to restrict invasions that way, although I wouldn't be opposed to seeing some kind of flag set for "invadable region" added to the game code.

This isn't to say I don't like your idea, but I'm trying to explain my understanding of the limits we're working under.

Unfortunately, I believe that Max Barry (the Great God Hisself) has decided that Invasion/Defense is a legitimate part of the game. While I don't see the allure myself, this is his baby. I don't think we're going to be allowed to restrict invasions that way, although I wouldn't be opposed to seeing some kind of flag set for "invadable region" added to the game code.

This isn't to say I don't like your idea, but I'm trying to explain my understanding of the limits we're working under.


Thanks for that explanation. I'm sorry to hear it, as you'd guess, but it helps to know "God" Barry's point of view, as well as being good to know that you're working under that limitation.

OTOH, I really like the idea of setting a flag for invadable regions, and if invaders could be made to honour it, I think it would do everything I wanted to do with my suggestion.

Max's comments and opinions from his three (to date) Maxchats on IRC have been recorded and reposted faithfully. I don't have links to them on hand, but if you look around you should be able to find them.

I think regional flag settings( On the top of the region page) would be cool.

Sorry if I missed this, but my question is....

There has been an attempted invasion, the natives regain control, now there are 'left over' nations in the region an odd defender an odd invader some who just came to watch the fun... if any of these nations decide to stay on in the Region and abide by the rules . How long before they can claim to be natives

From lack of replies I am guessing I should have got the answer from what has gone before, still got a few pages to wade through but I am guessing the answer is 'never' right?

I've also read in this thread a comparison between being invaded in NS and paying rent in Monopoly by someone who was either ignoring or was ignorant of the difference between "may" and "must". True, each of these appears in the rules of the respective games. However in NS, invasions "may" occur; in Monopoly, rent "must" be paid. Many of us in NS (75% according to one earlier post) do not wish to be taken by force and made to participate in the invasion scenario.


If you don't have a good argument then insult the poster. That always helps. In Monopoly you "may" have to pay rent "if" you land on that property. In NS you "may" be invaded "if" we feel like your region would be a sufficiant challange. In Monopoly you "must" be prepared to pay rent because the other players have a tendancy to buy the other properties and (Gasp...) put hotels on them. In NS you "must" be prepared for an invasion. You've been given every tool you could possibly need to prevent it (i.e. password protection, notification of entry, ejection capability, founders, defenders, mods who are in defender groups, etc..) If you still get invaded after than then maybe you shoud go back to playing tic tac toe. Oh wait, do I have to mark out the boxes I can pick before the game starts so you don't get upset?

If you don't have a good argument then insult the poster. That always helps. In Monopoly you "may" have to pay rent "if" you land on that property. In NS you "may" be invaded "if" we feel like your region would be a sufficiant challange. In Monopoly you "must" be prepared to pay rent because the other players have a tendancy to buy the other properties and (Gasp...) put hotels on them. In NS you "must" be prepared for an invasion. You've been given every tool you could possibly need to prevent it (i.e. password protection, notification of entry, ejection capability, founders, defenders, mods who are in defender groups, etc..) If you still get invaded after than then maybe you shoud go back to playing tic tac toe. Oh wait, do I have to mark out the boxes I can pick before the game starts so you don't get upset?There's one subtle difference between NS and Monopoly where this all falls apart: people who dont participate in the UN cannot participate as an Invader or Defender.

Yes, Max has said that Invasion is part of the game. I'll therefore suffer through it if need be. However, the operative word in that sentence is "suffer." If there's a way that we can minimise the damage done by Invasions, then I'm all for it. Some people like playing that aspect of the game, and I'm happy for them. I'd be a bit happier myself if my region Founder could set a flag that protected against Invasions so we could do our own thing in peace.

I'd be a bit happier myself if my region Founder could set a flag that protected against Invasions so we could do our own thing in peace.
<checkbox> UN Delegate can access Regional Control.

Full protection there. Add a password if you don't even want visitors. Seems adequate to me.

<checkbox> UN Delegate can access Regional Control.

Full protection there. Add a password if you don't even want visitors. Seems adequate to me.Perhaps, but unfortunately it hampers things when the Delegate and Founder enjoy a good working relationship, as the case with folks in my region.

Either way, I apologise if I seem to be harping on it. I'm never happy about bunker mentalities.

In my experience, invaders don't tend to pick on regions with active Founders, even if Delegate controls are on. Really, an active Founder is the best defense a region has against invasion.

Perhaps, but unfortunately it hampers things when the Delegate and Founder enjoy a good working relationship, as the case with folks in my region.

Either way, I apologise if I seem to be harping on it. I'm never happy about bunker mentalities.

Two things you can try then (I've seen both employed in various regions)

1) Password protect every night that the delegate or founder cannot be on til update, or at least nights of high-risk for invasions

2) Shut off delegate control before the founder goes to sleep... this is only advisable if the founder is a late to bed early to rise type of person though

Perhaps, but unfortunately it hampers things when the Delegate and Founder enjoy a good working relationship, as the case with folks in my region.
That accurately describes my Delegacy relationship. When I wanted to make a change to the WFE, I IMed or IRCed a request to our founder. As to booting and banning, I'd rather let the Founder handle that anyway. It's not like we were ever in any danger from invaders because they stayed unkicked for a few hours.

I have a question about ejecting and banning nations from a region.

If I am the (recently elected) delegate of my region, no invasion has ever happened here (in other words, everyone, including me, is a native), and the founder is long dead, how many nations may I eject? Can I ban them? Can I set a password? What is the deal?

I found the answer here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=387128).

Just a quick check, is the below mentioned still in effect?


Regarding ejecting and/or banning people in a captured region:
-Non-natives may be kicked and banned.


Thanks!

Cheerio,
Mal

Yes, it is

Official word from a mod would be nice too, if that can be taken as a case in point ;)

Cheerio,
Mal