New Rules on RP

[Polites]

I just don't see what situation could arise where the aims of a 'legitimate' nation-raid (assuming, for a moment, that such a thing exists) could not be achieved by other means.

As to malicious nation-raiding, we need to be clear about what and who are the targets for maliciousness in our criteria for this, if we're going to allow some nation-raids and disallow others.

Something like an Anglophone "Federal Republic of Deltaria" pre-cultural protocols with five active parties seems a legitimate target in my eyes, if the overall purpose is doing long-term RP and if the already existing players repeatedly refuse calls to be more respectful towards the old culture. Another hypothetical example is a republican Luthori, where players ignore the nation's strong monarchistic background and play as if they were in a US-clone. Cases like these, where interesting and creative RP is blocked by active but non-RP-ing parties, can justify nation-raiding as the only viable means for establishing, restoring, or protecting a nation's culture.

Apart from obvious cases of maliciousness (i.e. trolling), perhaps the best measure for distinguishing malicious from benign nation-raids is the quality of resulting RP. If a nation-raid is conducted solely to spite a player, then it is less likely to produce good RP. Likewise, malicious nation-raids I assume would generally not be interested in the long-term development of a nation, usually ending when their limited goal was achieved (the nation-raid that removed Sekowo's colonies in the 2900s comes to mind).

[Siggon Kristov]

I just don't see what situation could arise where the aims of a 'legitimate' nation-raid (assuming, for a moment, that such a thing exists) could not be achieved by other means.

I'd consider the Karavs' invasion of Gaduridos (which you backed) as a legitimate nation raid.
It was an IC invasion, i.e. the motive was IC and there were characters from one country invading another country to avenge their allies (the former regime). The invaders also forced the use of their home country's currency in hard cash, while all of the invaded country's currency was burnt and a digital system was formed instead. After this, the leader of the invasion returned home with a self-given title, and a claimed title from an old treaty between the invaded country and another country.Later, another player invaded as an Indralan colonial force, which made sense IC.

[soysauce]

I really don't think that nation raids should ever be routine enough that having them checked before going ahead would be unduly burdensome, there's going to be maybe half a dozen of these supposedly justified raids each year so they'll hardly swamp moderation.

perhaps the best measure for distinguishing malicious from benign nation-raids is the quality of resulting RP

But that would allow malicious experienced players to remove new players from nations at will...

[Aquinas]

Defining a nation raid is not always so easy as it sounds. Not every incident that gets labelled a "nation raid" is an organised affair involving prior co-operation or "collusion" between players. Sometimes they are more sort of spontaneous.

[EEL123]

Sometimes they are more sort of spontaneous.

Well, I would hope that spontaneously executed nation-raids are non-malicious (and if they are malicious, they should be prevented, although, rather like in criminal law, premeditated ones should probably receive stronger censure).

I just don't see what situation could arise where the aims of a 'legitimate' nation-raid (assuming, for a moment, that such a thing exists) could not be achieved by other means.

If it's non-malicious and accompanied by high-quality RP, then it's legitimate. Whether it could be done another way is irrelevant.

[Amazeroth]

- Making it impossible for other players to play in your nation

I assume this means an end to the use of the early election exploit and similar tactics such as treaty locking?

No, since neither of these tactics are done via RP laws.

I don't see why anyone not intending to maliciously nation raid should fear having to submit their plans to moderation before carrying them out, perhaps this unveils your true intentions...
Moderation would always in such a situation screen nation raids and it will just save moderation time retconning illegal raids and save the party that has been raided the inconvenience, not to mention averting endless disputes into the legality of raids.

Still, as with the OOC agreement before wars, it would not be required to come before moderation. If nation raiders don't have a good reason, they will be stopped regardless, and they will have lost time while achieving nothing. That should be deterrent enough for most cases. Also, as with OOC agreements, I wouldn't mind looking into the matter beforehand.

Yes, it would involve work for Moderation - that's a fair point. It might potentially save Moderation time and hassle too, though. As I said, I can easily imagine a poorly worked-out OOC RP agreement breaking down into an acrimonious argument - which Moderation would then get dragged into. But maybe I'm overly-focussing on this.

Yes, but since the rules clarify that for badly worked-out agreements the people responsible for them will suffer the consequences, there wouldn't be much of an argument once moderation is called in. Still, personally I'm open to looking at them beforehand.

I would suggest that a those conducting a nation-raid must a) have solid RP justification and b) be able to show, on the balance of probabilities, that there was no malicious intent. I do not think that nation raids aimed at restoring a nation's culture should be exempt from those requirements - otherwise it'd be rather like vigilante justice. As far as mod permission is concerned, I reckon that this is unnecessary and excessive. If someone has an issue with it, this should be reported to moderation ex post facto. While it does cause a hell of a hullabaloo when a nation raid does occur and people object to it, the amount of hassle the necessity of approval would cause would simply not be justified.

This is pretty much the way it's going to work. Nation raids won't be disallowed as a whole, both because there is some good RP that came from nation raids, and because, as Aquinas said, there would be problems finding a fair definition for nation raids in the case they were to be forbidden.

[Siggon Kristov]

I really don't think that nation raids should ever be routine enough that having them checked before going ahead would be unduly burdensome, there's going to be maybe half a dozen of these supposedly justified raids each year so they'll hardly swamp moderation.

perhaps the best measure for distinguishing malicious from benign nation-raids is the quality of resulting RP

But that would allow malicious experienced players to remove new players from nations at will...

Exactly. I don't think the resulting RP is all we should look at. There must be IC justification for the raid prior to the raid itself.

[EEL123]

There must be IC justification for the raid prior to the raid itself.

Isn't it enough just to ban malicious nation-raids?

[Siggon Kristov]

There must be IC justification for the raid prior to the raid itself.

Isn't it enough just to ban malicious nation-raids?

Even when raids aren't intentionally malicious, some still don't make sense RP-wise (like innocent noobs joining a country together, dominating, and changing everything with unintentional disregard for cultural protocols).

[Fred]

- Making laws that can't be revoked

I do think this needs clarifying. At present, the way it reads seems to include any treaty article, which would seem to contradict 'the system comes first'.