[Region Locking] Something needs to be changed.

[Galiantus]

Giving founderless regions tools of their own to fight back is not a bad idea. Perhaps natives could spend their influence to fight back in some way. Maybe natives could use influence to temporarily do things like remove the password, make their endorsement count more, or make it cost influence for the delegate to change the WFE and flag, or cancel embassies. Maybe natives could band together to eject nations with significantly less influence than them, in the same way a WAD could. I definitely agree that natives need more tools to fight off invaders on their own.

[Mallorea and Riva]

We did this. It's called influence.

Influence as implemented has been insufficient to stop invaders from griefing natives. I am talking about building on that system or alongside it.

Your assumption that raiders should be entirely prevented from being able to grief is where you went wrong there.

Diminishing returns don't begin to take effect until you get a huge number of endorsements. At that point it requires a large effort on raiders' part to get the raid organized and set (capitalist paradise).

I agree in principle with Riemstagrad's reply to this. I don't accept the argument that a native's failing to have enough Endorsements to stop any given raid ought to give the raiders license to do whatever they want with the region. See my previous posts.

It doesn't. There is influence. I saw your previous posts. Founderless natives have a larger burden to bear. They're founderless. It's a part of how the entire system works.

[Eist]

Founderless natives have a larger burden to bear. They're founderless. It's a part of how the entire system works.

Yes, we get it; there should be some additional penalty for the founder essentially ditching their region. You keep coming back to this, but what we are trying to ascertain is how much burden is too much burden. Personally, I think that given the current raiding climate it's far too much.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Founderless natives have a larger burden to bear. They're founderless. It's a part of how the entire system works.

Yes, we get it; there should be some additional penalty for the founder essentially ditching their region. You keep coming back to this, but what we are trying to ascertain is how much burden is too much burden. Personally, I think that given the current raiding climate it's far too much.

The burden is that the Delegate gets all regional controls and is limited solely by influence. There is no reason to give them additional protection that does not exist in other regions. That having been said if this is just the current climate then isn't it likely to change? Making any change to the game in regards to this issue itself rather pointless?

[Mousebumples]

This maybe should belong in its own thread, but given the on-going discussion here regarding founder-less regions, it sorta fits here, I think.

What about adding a feature that would allow WA Delegates to become the "founder" of a founder-less region - with a particular "time served" minimum as WA Delegate.

For example, the Delegate would need to have been serving (continuously) for over a year - or perhaps longer. (I don't know how many founder-less regions that particular time frame would impact.) I'd think that a 4-day "transition period" - similar to embassies - would also be appropriate here. Although, I'd argue that - unlike embassies - the "Delegate/Founder" transition cannot be undone. (Unless the Delegate/Founder CTEs and is eventually replaced through the same process.)

My understanding is that most regions change delegates semi-frequently - which is totally fine. However, for some regions - especially founderless ones - there are those Delegates that pretty much take the region under their wing and really "run" the region.

Plus, having this "time frame" could add a different incentive to the R/D game:

• Defenders wanting to "protect" the region when the 1 year period is approach and during the 4-day window. This would be an opportunity for non-updaters to participate in the R/D game by helping founderless regions gain a founder.
• Raiders keeping an eye on the clock and which regions have Delegate/Founder transitions underway. I'd think that by seizing the delegacy - even if they don't plan to hold it long term - would be quite the motivational carrot. After all, resetting the Delegates "clock" would leave the region founder-less for at least an additional year.
• There's even potential for non-updating raiders to participate, if they can conceal themselves as "sleepers" within the region in question. If they are the first few endos for the (sleeper) raider-planned Delegate, they would perhaps go unnoticed (if clean puppets) and could offer the few extra endos needed to bring the raiders to the required endo level to succeed.
• Possible re-ordering of "incentives." I know I don't do the R/D thing, but I would think that this might shift the attention of raiders - to some extent - beyond the quantity of tag raids to seeing how many of these refoundings they can prevent/interrupt.

I'm sure there's plenty I'm missing (as I said before: I don't really do the R/D thing myself), but this seems like a possible option to allow regions to protect themselves if they have a designated "leader" of a region that is merely unfortunate enough to have lost their founder.

(On a personal R/D note, this is a feature that I would have loved to have had when Monkey Island was raided 3½ years ago. Prior to the raid, I had been Delegate of my region for about 5 years - continuously. Our founder CTEd maybe a year or so prior to when we were raided, and while we were able to refound and come out the other side, I know that not all regions are successful in their attempts to accomplish the same.)

[Mallorea and Riva]

This was also suggested previously, although I believe they wanted it as a function of the WA to appoint a founder. That was a horrific idea. This idea is interesting, but I have some concerns. What if the old founder comes back? What advantage or positive benefit would this give to the raiding side of the game? Wouldn't this just encourage some regions to lock themselves down for a year in the hopes of getting a founder, essentially removing targets from the game entirely (a game over scenario, just like raiders used to be able accomplish before the Liberation category was created)?

[Mousebumples]

This was also suggested previously, although I believe they wanted it as a function of the WA to appoint a founder. That was a horrific idea. This idea is interesting, but I have some concerns. What if the old founder comes back? What advantage or positive benefit would this give to the raiding side of the game? Wouldn't this just encourage some regions to lock themselves down for a year in the hopes of getting a founder, essentially removing targets from the game entirely (a game over scenario, just like raiders used to be able accomplish before the Liberation category was created)?

I'd agree that a WA/SC function to appoint a founder is ... ridiculous. It's not even close to being an "even-handed" tool that could be used by both sides. While I'm sure we can all agree that Libs are used most frequently by Defenders, there's potential for Raider exploitation of the tool. All that a Refound SC option would do is remove targets, as you said.

I would think that there would/could be some restrictions - i.e. if the region is passworded, the tick-box in the Admin Panel would be inactivated. And the region could not/should not be passworded during the transition phase, for the sake of fairness. I would think that the CTE founder should get an email (provided they have an email address on file for the nation) of the impending Refounding. If they resurrect their nation before the Transition Process is complete, the Transition process could/should automatically abort. (After all, the region isn't founderless any longer.) Should the founder CTE again in the future, the Delegate could repeat the process, etc., etc.

I suppose that regions could lock themselves down for a year - in order to get to the "year time period" ... but so long as they were open during the transition phase, I'd figure that would be the most interesting part. And unless things have changed drastically over the past 3 years, there will still be plenty of founderless regions who will probably be clueless as to the fact that FRA/TITO/UDL exist and/or the different options available to them. (Texas was my defender-assistance 3½ years ago, as I had no idea who FRA/TITO/whomever else may have been around then even were there to help regions like mine.)

This could result in some regions "locking down" for an extended period of time, but I think that there would probably still be enough targets to be had. There are currently over 1400 regions that are founderless (per the API), and while I don't know how many of those are passworded, I'd guess it would be less than half - at most. (Anyone should feel free to correct me if they have differing information. That's just a guestimate on my part, based on how many passworded regions I find when doing my WA campaigning.)

Of course, there's also the common argument that I hear from defenders - that passwords mean the death of a region. While that would be a way to ensure that they have the ability to gain a founder without having to go through the refounding process ... What would be left of the region after being passworded for multiple months? Certainly, for a region that has a delegate that's already been in "power" for 11+ months, a short-term lockdown may not be all that bad, but it's definitely a trade-off to think about.

Further, I'm pretty sure I've heard tales of passworded regions still being raided. (Unless they were Tall Tales?) Passwords are a method of protection for a region - but they aren't infallible. It would probably require more subterfuge and trickery on behalf of the raiders, but I'd almost wonder if that might be an interesting challenge for you all.

EDIT: One of the reasons I thought of this idea is because I know that admins have "granted founderships" before. Granted, I think that was more to offer that option to nations who were created before founders even existed, but I know - for example - that Texas has a founder for this region. I want to say that there's a thread somewhere in this forum on that topic, but I'll admit to being too lazy to hunt it down right now. I don't know what the criteria were then, but it seems like another wrinkle that could add some new intrigue to the R/D game.

[Galiantus]

I like this idea. It makes it possible to perform a refound with a guarentee of success, and bases who can become the founder on something logical, rather than influence.

[Klaus Devestatorie]

Leave founders alone. There's exactly one way that a new founder should be appointed and it is through refoundation.

[Riemstagrad]

Leave founders alone. There's exactly one way that a new founder should be appointed and it is through refoundation.

i agree with this.

There should be found a way to give 'natives' an opportunity to play an active role when their region, or an allied region is under attack. Tooling with the founder-system doesn't accomplish that and it might summon some ugly monsters...

I still think a system that carries a delegate-change over to the next update, with an intermediate 'special' period where battle and politics can take place, can be a possible solution.

[Rich and Corporations]

Leave founders alone. There's exactly one way that a new founder should be appointed and it is through refoundation.

i agree with this.

There should be found a way to give 'natives' an opportunity to play an active role when their region, or an allied region is under attack. Tooling with the founder-system doesn't accomplish that and it might summon some ugly monsters...

I still think a system that carries a delegate-change over to the next update, with an intermediate 'special' period where battle and politics can take place, can be a possible solution.

Maybe embassies could support WA delegates, somehow, by recognizing a regional government?

[Kogvuron]

I do still like this idea, although I understand the chances of it being implemented are like one in a million

[Xanthal]

I still think a system that carries a delegate-change over to the next update, with an intermediate 'special' period where battle and politics can take place, can be a possible solution.

Maybe embassies could support WA delegates, somehow, by recognizing a regional government?

I must point out that neither of these ideas empower natives so much as they empower defenders and like-minded outsiders to do more to counter raiders. Maybe they're good ideas regardless, but they still put the fate of a region in the hands of nearly everyone except the common players who live there, which is precisely the sort of thinking that has led to natives being so impotent in the first place. To clarify, I'm not arguing against letting outside forces play a role in the fate of a region, just for giving residents of that region tools to compete with the outsiders.

[Unibot II]

I still think a system that carries a delegate-change over to the next update, with an intermediate 'special' period where battle and politics can take place, can be a possible solution.

Maybe embassies could support WA delegates, somehow, by recognizing a regional government?

I must point out that neither of these ideas empower natives so much as they empower defenders and like-minded outsiders to do more to counter raiders. Maybe they're good ideas regardless, but they still put the fate of a region in the hands of nearly everyone except the common players who live there, which is precisely the sort of thinking that has led to natives being so impotent in the first place. To clarify, I'm not arguing against letting outside forces play a role in the fate of a region, just for giving residents of that region tools to compete with the outsiders.

The problem is any power given to native delegates is going to give power to raider delegates -- the game only distinguishs between raiders and natives on the basis of influence. Making it increasingly harder to liberate.

[Xanthal]

The problem is any power given to native delegates is going to give power to raider delegates -- the game only distinguishs between raiders and natives on the basis of influence. Making it increasingly harder to liberate.

So stop making every tool in a Founderless region the exclusive property of the Delegate. As long as the Delegate is the only player who can do anything, we're never going to break out of the conundrum of how to design an algorithm that perfectly distinguishes between natives and non-natives. Such an algorithm is impossible. What we can do is use the system of Influence we already have- or a tweaked version of it- to establish a distribution of power: either direct (referendums) or indirect (something along the lines of a recall election for the Delegate).

[Galiantus]

The problem is any power given to native delegates is going to give power to raider delegates -- the game only distinguishs between raiders and natives on the basis of influence. Making it increasingly harder to liberate.

So stop making every tool in a Founderless region the exclusive property of the Delegate. As long as the Delegate is the only player who can do anything, we're never going to break out of the conundrum of how to design an algorithm that perfectly distinguishes between natives and non-natives. Such an algorithm is impossible. What we can do is use the system of Influence we already have- or a tweaked version of it- to establish a distribution of power: either direct (referendums) or indirect (something along the lines of a recall election for the Delegate).

Are you suggesting something along the lines of allowing members of founderless regions access to regional controls to some degree?

I am envisioning what you are saying as something along the lines of those with the most regional influence being able to use their influence to kick those with less influence out of a region or change the WFE by mutual consent, depending on how much influence they have. The difference between a delegate and a group of other high-influence nations doing this would be that it would cost many more times the amount of influence for each individual in the group to perform this kind of action, whereas the delegate could do so at only a fraction of the cost.

If this is what you are saying. I like it: This would not only make it possible for founderless regions to defend themselves, as well as make it important for raiders to prioritize who they do and don't eject from a region, but would also make it possible for well-planned invasions to massively multiply their amount of power. A major invasion could be very rewarding to raiders in this circumstance, because they could approach a "game over" result many times easier in certain instances. I would also argue that implamenting something like this would help everyone on a Gameplay scale because
1) Regional politics would matter more
2) The R/D game would be more available to non-updaters, and
3) Players could actually participate in policing their region to keep out spammers and supress RMB posts.

But it would still make the WAD position of enough political importance to fight over. Of course, in order to make this work the WAD nation would have to be directly untouchable, and SC Liberations would have to be somewhat limited in their power, but the overall effect of this would make regional politics one of the most important issues of the day.

[Unibot II]

Or what about a cap-and-trade system for influence that would require non-updaters in pile groups to at least be active and trading. There could be a limit on how much influence they could trade to someone in a day.

[Galiantus]

Or what about a cap-and-trade system for influence that would require non-updaters in pile groups to at least be active and trading. There could be a limit on how much influence they could trade to someone in a day.

Trading influence? This could be really useful for military gameplay, since it would make it harder for delegates to eject lots of people from the region, but there are some other uses for this in realms outside of the R/D game. For example, one could "Bribe" their WAD with influence, or vica versa. The only problem I see with this is its similarity to a monitary system, which could be...well...another problem to keep from getting out of hand.

(IPO shares, anyone?)

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I would like to see the game evolve in some way to include the third party of the R&D game. Without them (the nations in the regions under attack / defence) there would be no game. I hope they have a good representation at the summit. I have to wonder if given the chance to opt out of the R&D game altogether how many founderless regions would do that. Right now the only options to those players are to refound or move. Refounding involves risk and forces natives to take action in response to constant threats. Moving is also a somewhat forced action as it is due to the threat of invasions. Both of those in my opinion are forced upon Civilians as a responsive action to the R&D game. Something they already do not want to take part in but are forced to take one of three evils.
Stay and be invaded / defended constantly
Risk trying to refound
Give up and move.
Ideal would be a fourth option made open to them.

Natives hardly need more opt-outs. They have plenty of opt-outs they can; move, refound, password, and recruit more WA members. They have plenty of protections as well with influence and liberations. Natives assume the risk of R/D coming into their region when they reside in founderless regions and don't deserve any additional protections on top of everything they already have.

Only founded nations can have the ability to effectively opt out of raiding/defending with password protection. But again it raises the question about the game over move.

[The Bruce]

You already complain that too often the same regions are invaded. What is the cause of this? Too few targets. What would your suggestions do? Create even less targets. So either more regions get hit over and over and....yeah, or there are so few targets left that invading is killed off. As for Space, I've seen it raided since 2003/4, and it's still around. You worry too much.

Founderless regions like Space, with long term natives, have been destroyed in the past and will be destroyed again. Short term attention spans and the fear of losing activity often limit invaders antics in a region to a couple of weeks, but there's nothing else keeping them from holding onto a victim region for longer. GREATER ANTARCTICA (yes it was spelled in all caps) was a frequent raiding target, with Industrial London as its delegate. DEN got the idea of destroying it and they got enough influence to password protect it and squeeze the life out of the place for months before killing it. As a result a bunch more long term players have left the game, because their community was destroyed. Especially places like Hell, where defenders haven't been given the welcome carpet when coming to the rescue, are even more in danger of being destroyed.

[Crushing Our Enemies]

The problem is any power given to native delegates is going to give power to raider delegates -- the game only distinguishs between raiders and natives on the basis of influence. Making it increasingly harder to liberate.

So stop making every tool in a Founderless region the exclusive property of the Delegate. As long as the Delegate is the only player who can do anything, we're never going to break out of the conundrum of how to design an algorithm that perfectly distinguishes between natives and non-natives. Such an algorithm is impossible. What we can do is use the system of Influence we already have- or a tweaked version of it- to establish a distribution of power: either direct (referendums) or indirect (something along the lines of a recall election for the Delegate).

Something in another thread made me think of something that is an appropriate response to this, so I'll crosspost it here:

I might be in support of a way for natives to use influence to access the regional controls in a limited way, perhaps limited to removing passwords and removing nations from the ban list. Since they do not have the legitimacy that a delegate has, they would naturally have to expend influence at a MUCH higher rate to do such a thing, perhaps 50 or 75 times as much (and in the case of removing nations from the ban list, have to expend influence where a delegate would not have to at all...) Perhaps there would also be a requirement to be at a certain influence level, say, Eminence Grise.

I would definitely not support giving non-delegate natives the power to eject, ban, change the flag, WFE, embassies, tags, etc. If this were taken seriously, it would have to be limited to anti-region-destruction. In effect, this would give very high influence natives the power to prevent their region from being totally destroyed. These are defensive measures, designed to hold onto their region, not stop the actual raid. This is crucial - forcing raiders to fight a two front battle against natives and defenders would unbalance the game. I say leave liberations to the defenders, but let the natives fight against any existential threat.

This would naturally have a HUGE effect on intra-regional affairs, particularly in the feeders. If this suggestion were taken seriously, there should definitely be thought put into requiring founders to choose whether this feature will be implemented in their region upon founding. This feature effectively disrupts any kind of democratic system a region might set up. Former delegates would be able to hold onto a bit of power for long after they lose office. Perhaps game created regions should be excepted from this altogether.

In any case, I think it is definitely worth looking into giving some power to access the regional controls to non-delegate residents of a region. A flaw: this would encourage keeping multiple puppets in your region, so that you would have multiple high-influence nations to access the regional controls with. This is a kind of gameplay puppet-wanking that (on its face, at least) doesn't seem quite fair. Requiring WA membership doesn't solve the problem, as the player can transfer membership at virtually any time. If people like this idea, then we need to figure out 1) if this actually is a problem, and 2) if it is, how to solve it.

Naturally this is nowhere close to a finished idea, but I think it's a step in the right direction as concerns native power.

[The Bruce]

In May of 2003 the powers that be of NationStates instituted new anti-griefing rules against region destroying invaders. They were popular with defenders and natives, and unpopular with invaders and crazy delegates.

They limited the amount of destruction (banjections) you were able to do as a delegate, to cap delegate aggression against fellow natives or invaders against natives. It made the invader-defender battles less destructive to the regions they fought over. Not being able to destroy regions caused some invaders to quit invading or the game, while many defender groups started to get soft.

These rules were changed and when the current regional influence rules were brought out, invader activity spiked. At the same time there was a lag in defender activity since many had either left the game, stopped defending, or gotten soft. Regional influence favoured invaders and when they were able to get the update times of every region to within a second, "gameplay" was handed over to the invaders on a plate. All you need to do now is to get rid of founders and you can guarantee the death of this game within two years, from the destruction of all the regional communities.

Do we need a return to the anti-griefing rules of 2003? Certainly some form protection for natives is in order. I think a lot of native rights concerns are dismissed, with regards to the nightly wars between invaders and defenders, because the "gameplay" advocates are an extremely loud and active minority that give the impression that they're a bigger part of the NationStates experience than they actually are. This is especially true when you consider that a lot of their victims (not the ones continually victimized) are completely unaware that this part of the game even exists.

[Bundabunda]

My problem with the notion of native rights is who defines these native rights? Isn't it all a construct, as a raider's job is to kick out the natives, set a pass, and refound?

[Galiantus]

-snip-

All you need to do now is to get rid of founders and you can guarantee the death of this game within two years, from the destruction of all the regional communities.

True. Founders keep this game alive.

Do we need a return to the anti-griefing rules of 2003? Certainly some form protection for natives is in order.

That would be a bit scary, since it would essentially kill most gameplay. I am also very sure that 99% of the other gameplayers have a different definition of "native" than you.

I think a lot of native rights concerns are dismissed, with regards to the nightly wars between invaders and defenders, because the "gameplay" advocates are an extremely loud and active minority that give the impression that they're a bigger part of the NationStates experience than they actually are. This is especially true when you consider that a lot of their victims (not the ones continually victimized) are completely unaware that this part of the game even exists.

Gameplayers have a lot of power within the realm of NS. Just because other players happen to be innactive and generally don't care to participate in our games does not mean we don't effect the amount of the game we do. I agree with that conclusion.

As for the Native Rights discussion, that could go on forever. Just defining "native" could be quite a struggle. I happen to define natives as any nation who lived in the region when the Founder last logged on, but again, there are 99 different definitions out there. However, I would agree that giving long-time residents of a region some means to oppose those they see as Raiders/Defenders would help both us Gameplayers and the ambiguous group called "natives".

[Crazy girl]

We are not going back to a system where mods need to define who is a native and who is not.