Suggestion: Make Founders Optional!

[Spartzerina]

Make puppet.
Found region with puppet.
Go to region.
Make region good.
Delete puppet.

The problem with that is that you can always restore the puppet as long as you remember the password. Now, if you made the password a bunch of random letters, that might work, but that's a lot of work just to create a region without a founder. For those that would like to take the chance of getting their region invaded, it would be easier with this suggestion in place.

[Naivetry]

Sorry for continuing the thread bump, Pyth; if you'd like us to take it elsewhere, I'd be happy to.

[M]aking Founders optional at regional creation... I don't think will do a thing to our side of the game but cause a headache for defenders who have to figure out whether or not it's worth trying to save a region that intentionally committed suicide.

You could equally argue that all regions "intentionally commit suicide" if, following the loss of their Founder, they don't immediately organize a refounding. People have other priorities besides guarding against invasion.

From my perspective, it's not at all the same thing. Refounding is difficult, dangerous, and destructive; there are definite risks and drawbacks to it. There is no similar risk or drawback to checking an "I want to be a Founder" box when you first start out; so there's really no commensurate excuse not to have one.

I don't think you could assume no Founder == "please invade me." I might create a region as a non-executive Founder just because I want it to be democratic, not beholden to me. Practically, of course, my region would be a lot more vulnerable to external influence than it would otherwise be, but that would be a risk I'm prepared to accept, as opposed to something I actually want to happen. I would still desire assistance from defenders should I come under attack.

That last line is the problem. Of course you would desire it, but why on earth couldn't you have taken steps yourself to minimize your risk? It sounds like you're saying, "I want to live on the edge. Therefore, let me attempt to scale this cliff without the appropriate safety harness! Hey, that's what rescue teams are there for, right?"

That's what I mean when I say a region that chooses to be founderless from creation is just asking for it. There's a certain level of sympathy you're just not going to get from the rescue team, in comparison to someone who took all the right precautions but had their harness break on them halfway up the cliff. You could have chosen to be safe. You chose not to be. And now we're supposed to save you from the consequences? Sure, we'll probably give it a shot just because it's the Right Thing To Do, but if we have to make a choice between saving a victim of circumstance and you, you're not going to be at the top of our list.

It's not like we have to be here, and it's not a good feeling to have all the time and dedication you put into something taken for granted. We're stretched thin enough as is trying to cover for legitimate casualties, without introducing a class of people who refuse to take the simplest of steps to protect themselves.

I really don't understand the point to the first option. There are hundreds of Founderless regions out there already. If you want drama, why not just adopt one and try to build it up? And if you really want to opt-in, why not just start defending?

I'm hurt. I was in Equilism for a short time, but decided defending isn't for me. I want to be a naitive.

Defending doesn't mean you can't be a native; I can hardly express how bizarre a concept that is. I'm a military commander and my WA floats all over NS from mission to mission, but Naivetry is about as native to Equilism as you can get. Your home region is your home; you are always a native there, first and foremost.

As for joining an existing community, It's a great idea for those who don't want to build a new community. But for those of us who want to build a region (Alliances, laws, political systems, and all those things that these regions that have been around forever already have set in stone), it won't work.

Ah, but that's not what I was suggesting. There are literally dozens of founderless regions out there sitting nearly empty, with no community or government structure to speak of. Unless you have some particular preference for the name of the region you want as well, there is absolutely nothing to prevent you from adopting someone else's abandoned region and building it up from scratch.

And I haven't been here to watch the topic for the last month or so, but if Annexation goes in and isn't something that the Founder can block the Delegate from doing, even Founded regions, if they care at all about politics, will have a reason to make alliances.

That being what? Founders can stop delegates from ever gaining power if they are going to do something negative... (Eject/Banject)

Annexation, the last time I checked, would leave a little tag in your regional history. If you haven't participated in interregional politics, you may not understand why that would be such a big negative; but trust me, it would be.

[Topid]

Sorry for continuing the thread bump, Pyth; if you'd like us to take it elsewhere, I'd be happy to.

[M]aking Founders optional at regional creation... I don't think will do a thing to our side of the game but cause a headache for defenders who have to figure out whether or not it's worth trying to save a region that intentionally committed suicide.

You could equally argue that all regions "intentionally commit suicide" if, following the loss of their Founder, they don't immediately organize a refounding. People have other priorities besides guarding against invasion.

From my perspective, it's not at all the same thing. Refounding is difficult, dangerous, and destructive; there are definite risks and drawbacks to it. There is no similar risk or drawback to checking an "I want to be a Founder" box when you first start out; so there's really no commensurate excuse not to have one.

There are plenty of advantages to not having founders, and many disadvantages to having them.

I don't think you could assume no Founder == "please invade me." I might create a region as a non-executive Founder just because I want it to be democratic, not beholden to me. Practically, of course, my region would be a lot more vulnerable to external influence than it would otherwise be, but that would be a risk I'm prepared to accept, as opposed to something I actually want to happen. I would still desire assistance from defenders should I come under attack.

That last line is the problem. Of course you would desire it, but why on earth couldn't you have taken steps yourself to minimize your risk? It sounds like you're saying, "I want to live on the edge. Therefore, let me attempt to scale this cliff without the appropriate safety harness! Hey, that's what rescue teams are there for, right?"

That's what I mean when I say a region that chooses to be founderless from creation is just asking for it. There's a certain level of sympathy you're just not going to get from the rescue team, in comparison to someone who took all the right precautions but had their harness break on them halfway up the cliff. You could have chosen to be safe. You chose not to be. And now we're supposed to save you from the consequences? Sure, we'll probably give it a shot just because it's the Right Thing To Do, but if we have to make a choice between saving a victim of circumstance and you, you're not going to be at the top of our list.

It's not like we have to be here, and it's not a good feeling to have all the time and dedication you put into something taken for granted. We're stretched thin enough as is trying to cover for legitimate casualties, without introducing a class of people who refuse to take the simplest of steps to protect themselves.

Then don't come. That was simple. The admin can't make you defend a region, you are in no way obligated to defend. Heck, it'd be one more political issue within Equilism and other defender regions which will just make elections more interesting. :-)

But, I will go ahead and make a bet that if this is implemented a few smart raiders will realize that raiders can invade these regions without defender opposition, and use them for not only momentum, but for PR. And when raiders start doing that and spreading the word with the new SC, defenders should come to the rescue every now and then.

But that is totally up to the E-Army. But just because the E-Army has decided against defending in regions who choose not to have a founder, doesn't mean regions shouldn't be able to choose not to have a founder. I don't think the defender bias has gotten to that extent yet!

[[violet]]

I don't think you could assume no Founder == "please invade me." I might create a region as a non-executive Founder just because I want it to be democratic, not beholden to me. Practically, of course, my region would be a lot more vulnerable to external influence than it would otherwise be, but that would be a risk I'm prepared to accept, as opposed to something I actually want to happen. I would still desire assistance from defenders should I come under attack.

That last line is the problem. Of course you would desire it, but why on earth couldn't you have taken steps yourself to minimize your risk? It sounds like you're saying, "I want to live on the edge. Therefore, let me attempt to scale this cliff without the appropriate safety harness! Hey, that's what rescue teams are there for, right?"

I agree it's a little like that, although as per the above I may be a non-executive Founder with far nobler aims than simply wanting to "live on the edge." For example, I may believe regions with an omnipotent Founder are essentially dictatorships. I may prefer to seek to avoid invasion through obscurity or alliances rather than force.

I understand defenders might be less enthusiastic about defending such regions, and advocate against creating them, of course. I fully acknowledge this could make life more difficult for you, particularly if such regions are completely ignorant about the invasion game, or don't bother to make alliances with a defender organization. It would be up to defenders to decide how far to extend their protection. But I do see value in Founderless regions. And, to return to the original point, Founders are supposed to be an opt-out mechanism for the invasion game, but there's currently no way to opt-in.

As an RL equivalent, I see it like demilitarized countries: you can argue that nobody should help Iceland if invaded, because it's their own fault for choosing not to have a (real) military, but they didn't make that decision because they enjoy the thrill of the risk. They don't want to be invaded. They simply see other value in a country with no army.

[Naivetry]

There are plenty of advantages to not having founders, and many disadvantages to having them.

Such as?

I see only one 'advantage' to not having a founder, and that is not having to rely on the goodwill of an individual for the preservation of democracy. But there are plenty of regions who manage to run a democratic government quite well and ignore the de facto power of the Founder completely. (Equilism was one for years; the idea that control of the Founder nation could be used as a justification for controlling the forum government completely blindsided us... at least, those of us who weren't in on the fact that the coup was orchestrated by both sides.) So instead of relying on the willingness of the Founder to abstain from the use of in-game force, you would get to rely on your ability to maintain constant diligence against people who have nothing invested in the region at all... I have a hard time seeing how that's better. Edgier, yes. Better, no. The only disadvantage I see to having a Founder is the exact flip side of that argument - that you'd have to trust him.

Then don't come. That was simple. The admin can't make you defend a region, you are in no way obligated to defend. Heck, it'd be one more political issue within Equilism and other defender regions which will just make elections more interesting. :-)

No. You're wrong. We don't have that choice. We are obligated, because this is the role we have chosen. We decided to be the good guys, and if that means picking up the pieces after every region that has decided to risk itself, we'll have to live with that.

But, I will go ahead and make a bet that if this is implemented a few smart raiders will realize that raiders can invade these regions without defender opposition, and use them for not only momentum, but for PR. And when raiders start doing that and spreading the word with the new SC, defenders should come to the rescue every now and then.

Right! And you still think we have a choice? We can't refuse to defend anyone who hasn't actually provoked an attack, or we'll have set ourselves up as judges of who has the right to survive. When it comes to rhetoric I can defend a lot of things, no pun intended, but there's no possible justification for defenders who would choose to deny aid to innocent regions they could help.

That's the raider ideology after all, is it not? That regions which don't take steps to protect themselves deserve to be invaded? That's why there is no real way to support a position like that and remain a defender; take it from someone who's spent most of her NS career figuring out how to justify a wide range of in-game actions. It can't be done without contradicting the fundamental principles on which defending is based.

As an RL equivalent, I see it like demilitarized countries: you can argue that nobody should help Iceland if invaded, because it's their own fault for choosing not to have a (real) military, but they didn't make that decision because they enjoy the thrill of the risk. They don't want to be invaded. They simply see other value in a country with no army.

But it's Iceland. It's not in any imminent danger of attack from anyone; they can get away with not paying for an army because the chance that they'll ever have to pay for not having one is so small. If Israel were to disband its military because they saw 'other value' in a country with no army, then first, we'd think they'd lost their minds, and second, I imagine their relations with the U.S. would become a great deal more strained, if the U.S. were expected to make up the difference in security.

The NS world has no geographic barriers, and so the major factors that determine how much a region needs military protection are 1) whether or not it has a Founder, and 2) the number of endorsements held by its Delegate. Younger regions are inevitably smaller when they start out, and so to remove the protection of a Founder during their first 30 days of existence is likely to leave them with no means of protection at all. "Opting in" by choosing not to have a Founder is not opting into the military game; it's opting into being invaded. It's opting into being a victim, not a participant. There's a reason why every active member of the "Founderless" Regions Alliance... isn't.

There is one situation where I would not oppose this, and that would be if every region so created was created without the ability to be passworded. That way, at least they'd have a fighting chance.

[Bears Armed]

There are plenty of advantages to not having founders, and many disadvantages to having them.

Such as?

I see only one 'advantage' to not having a founder, and that is not having to rely on the goodwill of an individual for the preservation of democracy. But there are plenty of regions who manage to run a democratic government quite well and ignore the de facto power of the Founder completely. (Equilism was one for years; the idea that control of the Founder nation could be used as a justification for controlling the forum government completely blindsided us... at least, those of us who weren't in on the fact that the coup was orchestrated by both sides.)

Both of the two regions with which I am (& have ever been) most deeply involved have also managed to be democracies with founders too, with just one short break in the pattern for one of these when the person who came to power following a refounding decided to expel everybody else and password-lock the place. (He relented, and let the 'loyalists' refound it again, a few months later...)
After all, if people want a democratic region and their nations are currently located in in one whose founder prefers autocracy, they're perfectly free to move out and set up a new one that they run on a 'constitutional' model instead...

[Romanar]

Yes, if enough people disagree with the Founder, they can vote with their feet; in fact that's how Taijitu got started. But that's the ONLY recourse if you have an "evil" Founder. And I've seen a number of cases where the Founder took the region in a direction they didn't want to go, and other than the extreme act of starting a new region, the people couldn't do anything. A rogue Delegate, OTOH, can be voted out of office.

[[violet]]

Both of the two regions with which I am (& have ever been) most deeply involved have also managed to be democracies with founders too, with just one short break in the pattern for one of these when the person who came to power following a refounding decided to expel everybody else and password-lock the place.

Just playing Devil's Advocate: You can't say a region is democratic 99% of the time, except for when the Founder chooses to flex her muscles. The reality is the Founder maintains the ability to boot out anyone she wants for any reason 100% of the time. The fact that she chooses to withhold this punishment while regional members behave in a way she finds acceptable does not make it any less of a dictatorship.

[Bears Armed]

Both of the two regions with which I am (& have ever been) most deeply involved have also managed to be democracies with founders too, with just one short break in the pattern for one of these when the person who came to power following a refounding decided to expel everybody else and password-lock the place.

Just playing Devil's Advocate: You can't say a region is democratic 99% of the time, except for when the Founder chooses to flex her muscles. The reality is the Founder maintains the ability to boot out anyone she wants for any reason 100% of the time. The fact that she chooses to withhold this punishment while regional members behave in a way she finds acceptable does not make it any less of a dictatorship.

Except that, unlike the situation with RL dictatorships, it's easy enough for people to "vote with their feet" and leave of their own volition anyway... which should help to keep any sane Founders in line, because otherwise they'll run out of 'subjects' very quickly.
The fact is, despite that 'Dictatorship' label you want to apply, there are NS regions with active Founders that function perfectly well on a 'Constitutional Monarchy' basis instead... and the sort of player who'd willing forego 'Founder' status when creating a region, under the system whose possibility this thread is about, could probably be trusted to keep to an agreed constituion like that if they did have 'executive' powers.

[A mean old man]

Make puppet.
Found region with puppet.
Go to region.
Make region good.
Delete puppet.

The problem with that is that you can always restore the puppet as long as you remember the password. Now, if you made the password a bunch of random letters, that might work, but that's a lot of work just to create a region without a founder. For those that would like to take the chance of getting their region invaded, it would be easier with this suggestion in place.

Doesn't really seem like a lot of work if you think about it; just type a pile of random letters and it's done. I also can't see why they'd want to restore it, unless they were going to cheat and boot some invaders who had taken over. Although I personally would find that quite amusing.

Though I suppose an option would help if you really wanted some legitimacy, so why not. Support.

[Czardas]

Oppose, on the basis that not having a founder has historically been a sign of a region that was created before founders were introduced to the game and has been continually in existence since then, and is thus something of a badge of honour. Introducing new founderless regions would just confuse matters. <.<

Besides, you can always create a puppet, scramble the password, create a region with it and then let it die. It'll take longer, but same deal.

[Sedgistan]

Oppose, on the basis that not having a founder has historically been a sign of a region that was created before founders were introduced to the game and has been continually in existence since then, and is thus something of a badge of honour. Introducing new founderless regions would just confuse matters. <.<

As already mentioned in the thread, there could be some way as marking them as 'historically founderless' regions. Besides, I don't see why they should get any favouritism simply for having been around a long time.

Besides, you can always create a puppet, scramble the password, create a region with it and then let it die. It'll take longer, but same deal.

Indeed, but why should you have to?

With regards to Nai's points, I don't think its really fair for defenders to claim people shouldn't be able to do this because it might mean more work for us. If people would rather have a founderless region, then defenders shouldn't be allowed to dictate that they can't. We're supposed to stand for letting people run their regions as they want to - and if that includes not having a founder, then so be it.

[Topid]

Both of the two regions with which I am (& have ever been) most deeply involved have also managed to be democracies with founders too, with just one short break in the pattern for one of these when the person who came to power following a refounding decided to expel everybody else and password-lock the place.

Just playing Devil's Advocate: You can't say a region is democratic 99% of the time, except for when the Founder chooses to flex her muscles. The reality is the Founder maintains the ability to boot out anyone she wants for any reason 100% of the time. The fact that she chooses to withhold this punishment while regional members behave in a way she finds acceptable does not make it any less of a dictatorship.

Except that, unlike the situation with RL dictatorships, it's easy enough for people to "vote with their feet" and leave of their own volition anyway... which should help to keep any sane Founders in line, because otherwise they'll run out of 'subjects' very quickly.
The fact is, despite that 'Dictatorship' label you want to apply, there are NS regions with active Founders that function perfectly well on a 'Constitutional Monarchy' basis instead... and the sort of player who'd willing forego 'Founder' status when creating a region, under the system whose possibility this thread is about, could probably be trusted to keep to an agreed constituion like that if they did have 'executive' powers.

The fact that some of the dictators don't use their power doesn't make the region any less of a dictatorship. I like Democracy.

[JURISDICTIONS]

I have my puppet run a region called FEDERAL WORLD GOVERNMENT...and it is constitutional....In our constitution Founder's powers are limited by the constitution... I am not going to break a constitution i wrote myself... we are constitutional....and no label will change that.

[Bears Armed]

Both of the two regions with which I am (& have ever been) most deeply involved have also managed to be democracies with founders too, with just one short break in the pattern for one of these when the person who came to power following a refounding decided to expel everybody else and password-lock the place.

Just playing Devil's Advocate: You can't say a region is democratic 99% of the time, except for when the Founder chooses to flex her muscles. The reality is the Founder maintains the ability to boot out anyone she wants for any reason 100% of the time. The fact that she chooses to withhold this punishment while regional members behave in a way she finds acceptable does not make it any less of a dictatorship.

Except that, unlike the situation with RL dictatorships, it's easy enough for people to "vote with their feet" and leave of their own volition anyway... which should help to keep any sane Founders in line, because otherwise they'll run out of 'subjects' very quickly.
The fact is, despite that 'Dictatorship' label you want to apply, there are NS regions with active Founders that function perfectly well on a 'Constitutional Monarchy' basis instead... and the sort of player who'd willing forego 'Founder' status when creating a region, under the system whose possibility this thread is about, could probably be trusted to keep to an agreed constituion like that if they did have 'executive' powers.

The fact that some of the dictators don't use their power doesn't make the region any less of a dictatorship. I like Democracy.

If a Founder creates a region with the intention that this should be run democratically according to a constitution developed by the early members, and invariably acted (in regional matters) according to that constitution once it's been ratified, and can be trusted never to act as a Dictator instead, then you can have a Founder and Democracy. As I said before, I personally know more than one region where this works...

[Topid]

If a Founder creates a region with the intention that this should be run democratically according to a constitution developed by the early members, and invariably acted (in regional matters) according to that constitution once it's been ratified, and can be trusted never to act as a Dictator instead, then you can have a Founder and Democracy. As I said before, I personally know more than one region where this works...

A dictator behaving democratically, a democracy does not make. The Pope is fairly democratic, doesn't make the Vatican a Democracy. (Real world example, let's not start talking about catholics )

Although, a more valid point would be that even without founders there can be dictator delegates. But something can be done about delegates in a region... Nothing can be done about founders.

[JURISDICTIONS]

unless you vote with your feet!

[Fit battion]

he Pope is fairly democratic, doesn't make the Vatican a Democracy. (Real world example, let's not start talking about catholics

Actually the Vatican kind of is democratic because the Pope is elected, although on average only about every 20 years there is still an election.

[Topid]

the Pope is fairly democratic, doesn't make the Vatican a Democracy. (Real world example, let's not start talking about catholics

Actually the Vatican kind of is democratic because the Pope is elected, although on average only about every 20 years there is still an election.

The point is all the people of the Vatican don't vote, like twenty or so cardinals, chosen by the past Popes do (I don't know how many there are).

And voting with your feet is not a very good option considering that means leaving the community you've played in for a long time in most cases.

[JURISDICTIONS]

we need a way to remove founders .... is that what you are suggesting?

[Topid]

we need a way to remove founders .... is that what you are suggesting?

It's all in the thread.

Either a way for founders to remove themselves at any point or to choose not to be an "active" founder when the region is founded.

[The Republic of Lanos]

"yo dawg, so i herd NS mods can make anyone regional founders, but they don't do it anymore."

if this is true, mods could have saved countless regions from raiders

[Enn]

"yo dawg, so i herd NS mods can make anyone regional founders, but they don't do it anymore."

if this is true, mods could have saved countless regions from raiders

As far as I can recall, the admins have done this a maximum of twice. It involves working through the gamecode, I believe. Not something the admins want to be doing all the time.
Plus there's regions that historically don't have founders; to deny them their historical status is rather rude.

[JURISDICTIONS]

Well either there needs to be a resignation function or a way to make regions without a founders.

[Gobbannium]

Well either there needs to be a resignation function or a way to make regions without a founders.

Why?