
Issue XVI, March 08, 2014 UNIBOSS's Note
I see some of our competitors have joined twitter -- 140 characters. Yeah that's not happening with us -- sorry about that.
>> OPINION
A Careful Balance: Defenderism in The Rejected Realms
OPINION | THOUGHT TRANSFERENCE
Thought Transference, beloved veteran, explains why the time was right for The Rejected Realms to become a “defender region”.
I imagine certain members of our residents and even of our citizens will object; some may argue that labeling ourselves "defender" after so long will be a betrayal of them as neutral or invader nations, and a betrayal of our stance as welcoming to all. After all, we have invaders of one kind or another as citizens now, and if I'm not mistaken we've even had citizens with invader sympathies in government.
But personally, I believe the time was right for The Rejected Realms to become a defender region.
I know we redefined ourselves to be a neutral place and all that, and as far as our attitude to the people who come here to live that's fine with me, but I moved here way back when because I liked that we were associated with a defender army. I have now learned to feel comfortable enough knowing that some of my fellow-citizens are people I'd regard as enemies if I lived elsewhere, and I've been glad for the opportunity to meet invaders on a level other than as adversaries. I consider that a positive thing. I also consider it a boon to our region that we are in some sense "bigger" than the conflict between invaders and defenders, although that's only partially true and will always be so.
Nevertheless, I haven't shaken off the feeling that we achieved that “neutral” position by sidelining the RRA slightly, as if they were an embarrassment, and I'm was never comfortable with that. So I welcome anything that could redress that.
Frankly, I think that part of selling defenderism to the region overall is about how we define it and present it to the region. It should be a topic for conversation rather than simply an open-and-shut petition, although a petition can be an opening stage of such a conversation.
After all, we were sold on neutrality only after discussions that allowed us to explore how to make it all fit together. This was the time to open a discussion about how we were doing so far, to observe the ways in which we've fallen short of the original plan, and to make the necessary adjustments needed to maintain a careful balance between our noble heritage and our more recent open-door policy.
The Rejected Realms became a “defender” region officially on Jan 10 2014.
Kazmr Speaks!
An Exclusive Interview with Lazarus's New Chairman
INTERVIEW | LIBETARIAN REPUBLICS
Libetarian Republics sits down with Kazmr, shortly after his election...
Congratulations on becoming the Third Chairman of the People's Republic of Lazarus! How are you feeling?
A bit in shock, to be honest! Milograd's retirement caught everyone off guard, but he certainly had good reasons. Now, three days later, and only about six months after becoming active on NS, I'm a GCR delegate!
That's pretty impressive! Six months is a pretty short tenure before becoming a GCR Delegate! You do, however, have some huge shoes to fill in since Milograd has stepped down. May I ask, what are you goals and objectives for the PRL under your leadership?
You're right that'll it'll be a challenge to live up to my predecessor. Despite what some may think of him, its hard to imagine a delegate doing more to help his region than Milograd has. As for my own goals, I'm looking to focus on some of the things that haven't been as high a priority recently, and also build on a lot of what made Milograd's term great. For instance, I really want to keep pushing forward with activity, since that's been our lifeblood.
So I really want to put a lot of focus into culture and bringing new people into our region. I also want to do work gameside, like utilizing polls and staying active on the RMB. My hope is that this will both help our region as a whole feel more active, and perhaps also help find new people who might be interested in the forum community.
Another big one for me is our military. While I have very little military experience (read: a few updates as non-wa fodder), I want to give Hobbes whatever support he needs. I believe that he will do a fantastic job as DYP's successor, as he is already starting to show, and continue to make the LLA a major player on the battlefield.
You are certainly ambitious and I admire that. I would like to move on towards perhaps to any Foreign Affairs plans we may see from Lazarus under your leadership? What are your objectives abroad, such as relationships you wish to seek or wish to maintain?
I'm still working out precisely where I want to focus, but there are some good places to start. For instance, I'd like to keep building ties with our fellow defender regions. Being one of the largest out there, and the largest defender GCR at the moment, we're in a unique position to act on the great moves that Milograd made with things like the XYZ treaty.
I'd also like to strengthen our ties with some of the other GCRs. I was pleasantly surprised to see Osiris providing a couple of WAs to push me into the delegacy my first night, and perhaps that could be the start of something.
The same for The East Pacific, who are one of Lazarus' older allies. We have several of our active members who are also in TEP, and I think there is a lot to be had from our friendship. I would also like to perhaps look into doing some outreach to regions that may not be as well known in the gameplay echo chamber. While there are some who aren't too involved with good reason, I think there are some great regions out there that get overlooked just because their members may not post in Gameplay.
Excellent. While the PRL has been praised for its revitalization of the region, Lazarus, it has been criticized for the "lack" of democracy. May I ask for your opinion about this?
I personally don't think that Lazarus actually needs democracy, nor that it is the best system for all regions. I think it works in some cases, but Lazarus had a democracy in various forms for well over a decade and what did it get? A year or two of activity? A divided camp that got nothing done? It's not as if we have a complete lack of say for individual citizens.There is a congress elected by the people that can remove the Chairman, for instance. But we believe that the best way to foster activity in the region is to have a very strong executive who has the power to do what's necessary to make the community great
Well enough of the serious stuff. Let's have some fun. What's your favorite Lazarene Gazette Article that you have written?
That's a hard one. Since the Lazarene Gazette was my baby while I was running it. As much as I loved my satire, though, I'm going to have to go with my piece on Drop Your Pants. It was an interview, yes, but I took a lot of really interesting creative liberties to make it much more like a story.
Still had a bit of my favorite 'satirical' language leaking in, but it was a great piece. As for satire, I'm going to have to say iron production. Everyone thought I was absolutely nuts after that, but Lazarus and some insightful others got the truth buried deep within.
Sweet! Now to wrap things up, iron or coal?
Iron, clearly. Its production is the standard by which all regions should be measuring themselves.
Of course! Thank you for having the time to participate in this interview. For our readers, any last minute words you wish to express?
I want to thank Lazarus for putting their faith in me, and the members of my government for continuing to do what they do best. #fishmonga4lyfe
NationStates: Stuck in the Past
OPINION | AFFORESS
NationStates is a game stuck in the 1990s. Max Barry released the game in 2002[1], but despite its modern origins, the culture seems desperate to the ancient past.
A secretive culture has evolved in NationStates. Regions pride themselves on the number of tools and secret forums they hide. Defenders and Invaders alike create tools to give themselves an edge in their battle. These tools are never shared with others, with an existence only whispered about[2]. Information about game mechanics is intentionally kept secret[3]. Players wishing to share achievements or advances are discouraged. Change becomes feared, as all sides proclaim with fear that any changes will give their opponents an edge. Minor redesigns in game mechanics[4] are impossible due to staunch resistance from an entrenched playerbase.
History goes in reverse at NationStates. As the educated, skilled players in NationStates leave the game, as they do inevitably, for one reason or another, the total knowledge surrounding the game recedes. Ideas are lost, never shared. Tools atrophy and rust away, by neglect and their secretive use. Libraries burn[5][6], and no one lifts a hand.
This trend goes even further than tolerance of decay. Outsiders and players not familiar with gameplay mechanics and advanced raider & defender tactics are heavily discouraged from participating. New groups of players are mocked when they make basic efforts towards gameplay independance. Tutorials are bashed for every minor inaccuracy[7]; there is no interest in improving them, only in tearing them down. Efforts to reduce the difficulty or complexity of the game are met with hostility, or suspicion. Anyone not “in-the-know” is criticized harshly.
In a healthy community, sharing ideas and technology leads to advancement. The more we know, the more we become capable of. Shared understanding of the game lead to new ideas, new innovations. The games themselves are secondary to their communities. Many games success and popularity are a direct result of their community. One does not need to look far to find numerous examples of places where open and free access to information, ideas, and tools lead to an explosion of growth, advancement, and technology. Yet, so far, NationStates survives despite its community, not because of it.
1: See http://www.nationstates.net/HISTORY
2: See “Telescope” tool used by the UDL.
3: There was a strong effort by raiders to conceal influence formulas. They were eventually leaked by Milograd, against the wishes of his raider affiliates.
4: See debate over R/D changes http://forum.nationstates.net/viewforum.php?f=32
5: The Jolt Archive, containing several years of NS history and forum discussion has been lost, and no one has put serious effort into recovering it.
6: NSWiki.net, a repository of tens of thousands of histories, went offline in November 2013, with no attempts at recovery.
7: See reaction at tutorial: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=283999
Prudish or Fair?
OPINION | THE CHURCH OF SATAN
Reading the introduction thread of, one, Crowley Hell, took me back to my own introduction thread. As in my case, he felt offended, hurt even, to log on only to find himself in The Rejected Realms for reasons unknown to him. I know how you feel Crowley, I've been there. That's why I have such a soft spot for Crowley's case. I can't help but feel sympathetic in this instance. After all, somebody should.
On 01 March 2014, Crowley Hell, founded in The Pacific on 02 November 2013, was banned from The Pacific because of his motto. His motto read "You poor bitches". The decision to ban him was made, because according to The Pacific's Civil Code, "objectionable nation names, flags or mottos" are a violation of law. However the question that this poses is: Does the punishment fit the crime? Reportedly, Crowley Hell was given no warning or asked to change his motto. Suffice to say he was blindsided.
On one hand it does seem pretty harsh to ban someone for a motto that has profanity in it. At the very least, he could have been asked to change his motto. On the other hand, it is entirely at the discretion of the government to ban someone for violating law, as stated in the civil code:
"These offenses are punishable by sanctions up to and including a permanent ban from the region, at the sole discretion of the presiding Justices, or in emergencies, the Emperor". [Civil Code for Uniform Justice and Order in The Pacific ]
The Pacific's law concerning this seems rather restrictive. More than that, it infringes on Crowley Hell's right to do with his nation as he pleases. Does The NPO really retain the right to regulate the content of residential nations? Perhaps that is better left to NS moderators. Is it really just for a region to determine what we ought to place in our nation's mottos? What right does The Pacific really have? Maybe it was indeed prudish of Krulltopia to ban him. Of course, I mean that with all due respect to Krulltopia. Regardless, this isn't just a simple case of wrongful ban. This is a major infringement of Crowley's rights. I could see if his motto contained material that was hateful or offensive, but that was not the case.
Prudish? Fair? You decide. As for me, I feel The NPO was wrong in their decision.
Why the Gameplay Summit Failed
EDITIORAL | UNIBOT
Unibot discusses the ill-fated “Gameplay Summit”
I’ve got something that I’ve been hiding for a long time: in November 4 2012, when The NationStates World found 85% of respondents were confident about the new Gameplay Summit, I was the lone “very unconfident” voice. There, said it. I’m glad I got that off my chest! Phew. Now given this, please take this article with a grain of salt (as I’m sure you always do when it is written by me), because there’s a possibility that my negativity towards the Gameplay Summit from “Day One” is influencing my opinion of it even now – overall however, I believe it was inevitable that the Gameplay Summit was going to fail because of its timing, structure and a number of different factors.
There’s a history to the “Gameplay Summit” of course. Back in, eh, sometime in 2006, the site administrators held a secret and closed conference with various stakeholders – one of them was Free4All, who shared his experiences about the conference to me during an interview for Paradise Found. During the interview, Free4All explained how the final proposal was rejected and substituted by Max for the “Regional Influence” system – the discussion ended there. Regional Influence, of course, was enormously unpopular – possibly, the most controversial decision made by the site administrators in NationStates’s storied history.
I, myself, was not around in 2006 when Regional Influence was first implemented. Nonetheless, when I joined two years later, Regional Influence was still as unpopular and illegitimate as a game development as Rule IV was the day it was implemented. Players were livid about the game change: for some it legitimized griefing, for others it overstabilized Game-Created Regions and it took years for the game staff to address so-called “password-raiding”, an unintended consequence of Regional Influence. Many gameplayers blame the decline of organized gameplay between 2006 to 2009 on Influence’s invasive, unsolicited introduction.
The Gameplay Summit between 2012 and 2013 was an attempt to invite public opinion on game changes with a more constructive approach – it failed, however, on a number of different issues to deliver a productive dialogue.
Agendas
Players were actually encouraged by the summit’s organizers to engage in “politicking” – allowing various players to push and hobnob to see their interests and views represented in the summit. While I can certainly understand encouraging “politicking” in the game, I cannot understand why the summit would want our ideas and innovation warped through politicking.
Representatives held “agenda” threads in the summit, while allowing them to interact and solicit opinions, this hobnobbing and political gamesmanship acted as a creative filtration process. Ideas were put through a political funnel – what was presented during the summit were not necessarily the best ideas, but the ones that gained political traction for whatever reason: if it be the ebb and flow of public opinion or the political capital of the agenda-setters involved.
Focus and Direction
One of the major problems with the Gameplay Summit was its lack of focus – it was not clear from the onslaught what was the major topic of discussion (e.g., Piling? Tagging? “Clock Raiding”? Influence?). This meant that most of the discussion was exhausted solely on the topic of what was the Summit’s agenda supposed to be about – this lack of focus was then exasperated by an unnecessary exposition of these representatives’ “nirvana” for Military Gameplay. Instead of specific reform, we were entertaining vague and often radical dreamscapes from representatives.
Not only was there a lack of focus and direction in the Gameplay Summit, but Defenderdom was giving mixed signals to the Site Administration – this is because different defense groups have different priorities.
The United Defenders League were mostly concerned with effectively staging liberations, while The Founderless Regions Alliance and TITO were more concerned with the issue of tagging. This is a clash of priorities, since the latter group sees tagging as affecting more players and defending as economical, whereas the former group sees occupations as affecting natives more substantially and liberating as an urgent necessity. When it comes to technical improvements, these views predictably clash because ideas to counter tagging often come at a cost of restricting the (already stressed) capacity of liberators to free occupied regions.
Representation
With the exception of Mallorea and Riva, I would divide the representatives into three broad categories: (1) Quiet, “reasonable” and “moderate” voices, (2) People with not much stake in Military Gameplay, (3) Grossly misinformed of how Military Gameplay operates.
What’s wrong with quiet, reasonable and moderate, you ask? Absolutely nothing if you’re running in an election in NationStates. People love quiet, reasonable and most of all, “moderate” candidates. The problem is that quiet, reasonable and moderate, basically never translates into critical thinking, innovation or substance. I’ve got a rule of thumb for elections, call it Unibot’s Second Law of NationStates: the candidate who presents the fewest ideas is most likely to win, while the leader who does the least while still managing to maintain public confidence is most likely to garner public adulation and praise. Democratic politics in NationStates has this odd way of promoting inaction, prosaicism and passiveness, instead of substance or vision, despite almost every election being about “change”.
Out of the representatives, (I believe) only Mallorea and Riva had previous experience with suggesting ideas that were later implemented in the game. In comparison, half of them had served as elected public officials in Game-Created Regions. The filtering process for candidate selection, largely built a list of non-offensive voices.
For many of these representatives, this was a political opportunity to display their leadership qualities, instead of a much-needed platform for fresh ideas and innovation.
Structure
The structure of the Gameplay Summit was notably static – representatives were very limited in their ability to reply to other representatives, while outsiders were very limited in their ability to reply to other non-representatives.
This meant that most of the dialogue was artificial and contrived – the attempt to “control” Gameplay came at a heavy cost for the insightfulness and depth of the discussion.
Inactivity
Obviously, inactivity of the Organizers and the Representatives played a large role in the Gameplay Summit’s unsuccessfulness – it’s difficult to run an event when things are not promptly moving along with fresh discussion and participation.
Necessity
Arguably the most important factor of the Gameplay Summit’s demise was that it was not player-driven or player-initiated – its discussion was artificial in its origin.
When I look back at successful platforms for negotiating and developing new ideas to implement technical changes and improvements to NationStates, the reoccurring pattern suggests grassroots, horizontal, player-driven and player-initiated discussions have been the driving force of constructive input for the Site Administration. Generally, there is a crisis – and once most people are aware that this crisis exists, they come together over a proposal or a set of proposals to counter this crisis. It’s a matter of public opinion and perception shifting towards the acknowledgement of a problem and a constructive, open discussion on how to resolve this widespread problem. Take for example, the “NS World Adjustment” thread in 2008 – the Great Decline was threatening the game and commentators like The Bruce, Kandarin, Naivetry, Todd McCloud and myself, stepped up to discuss new brave new ideas, many of which would later be implemented in NationStates.
A more recent example is “Safe-Switching”, which became an open topic for discussion when it became clear that puppet-switching was extremely risky (after myself and Halcones were banned from the World Assembly), yet the problem was easily resolvable (to the point that detractors almost seemed to fancy a prohibitively dicey system). The final proposal made by Mallorea and Riva was extremely popular after some hard debate – overall, I would consider it one of the best improvements to Military Gameplay in the past decade.
An ongoing example would be the open dialogue taking place on Recruitment (as initiated by Cormac). It is nearly universally recognized that there is a serious crisis regarding the ineffectiveness of contemporary recruitment and its prohibitive cost, while a return to manual recruitment would be a return to a more unequal NationStates and a perpetuation of the status quo. This is a crisis everyone acknowledges exists and eventually solutions will develop through an open dialogue once compromises are struck and alternative approaches are devised.
Conclusion
Overall, the problem with the Gameplay Summit was that it reflected another attempt by the Site Administration to shift technical discussion and innovation from a horizontal forum to a vertical forum, which encouraged political gamesmanship and grandstanding, intellectual dishonesty and obfuscation. The Site Administration may not find it pretty to watch, but the most effective method for driving innovation and improving the game is through horizontal forums of discussion that are player-initiated and player-driven with full access to voice one’s opinion to a dynamic, as opposed to static, dialogue with their colleagues.
Despite one moderator’s (probably valid) complaints regarding the circularity and incivility of these horizontal forums, most of the accepted proposals came from open discussions, either before or parallel to the Gameplay Summit – this includes the Reformation WA Proposal (proposed by myself), Custodian WA Proposal (proposed by Mousebumbles), Mitigating influence in GCRs (proposed by Sedgistan), Regional Officers proposal which was first proposed by Frisbeeteria in 2008 during the “NS World Adjustments” discussion, and the Delegate Elect proposal, which was a trifurcation of proposals from Riemstagrad, Halcones and Guy that sought to address the widespread backlash against tagging and piling.
The Gameplay Summit was unnecessary and the package of ideas that have been released as the “outcome” of it, overwhelmingly were not the product of the Gameplay Summit.
There is still, however, many problems facing Gameplay– on one hand, the only proposal to majorly respond to piling has been sidelined, while the only proposal that was not robustly discussed by players before its introduction, the “Estimated Times” feature, will likely have no effect in resolving its primary concern of encouraging players to get involved in defending and invading (because timing technology was one of the easier resources for small, ambitious groups to obtain), while the secondary concern of limiting tagging will come at even more devastating costs to the accuracy of liberations (with which accuracy is even more important). I suspect we have several years ahead of discussion over the issues that not fully addressing piling and the difficulty of liberations will cause. Without also simultaneously addressing the speed at which invaders can ban and eject liberators, we are entering a brave new gameplay environment where chance and frequency is more favored than skill, dedicated taggers are still tagging boatloads of regions daily and liberations are even more difficult to perform.
My hope is defender commentators recognize that the “Estimated Times” feature (and the unnecessary randomization of the "Daily Dump") is not the miracle solution that they hoped would curb tagging and will come at great losses for occupied native communities, while the sidelining of the Reformation WA Proposal, marks a serious failure to address the issues that we came to the Gameplay Summit hoping to resolve. While the Feeder community was not initially well represented in the Gameplay Summit, because of their periphery involvement in Military Gameplay, they complained loudly and received substantial representation as of result – the proposal regarding Influence in Game-Created Regions was first to be implemented. Meanwhile, I think it is likely the interests of the wider public in countering a static, “end-game” in Military Gameplay (where hostile occupations are nearly impossible to liberate) are unlikely to be heard until more issues arise and more voices are heard. This will not be pleasant.
As the Dutch say, “out of the frying pan, into the fire”.