Advertisement
by Glen-Rhodes » Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:02 pm
by Commerce Heights » Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:59 pm
[violet] wrote:I believe regions should have to care about regional defense.
by Sichuan Pepper » Thu Jul 10, 2014 12:55 am
Glen-Rhodes wrote:I don't see how a completely isolated region, where you cannot leave and cannot interact with other regions, is better than simply a WA-free region, let alone the best option available. Who would actually want a region they're trapped in forever?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Mallorea and Riva wrote:Yeah but no one here can read. Literacy is a tool used by fendas, like IRC or morals.
by JURISDICTIONS » Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:40 am
Madam Violet, if I may, this statement is incorrect. When I said "not retroactive", I meant that this would only effect brand new regions. All currently created regions would not receive this feature.[violet] wrote:-snip-
The Founder Succession proposal in this thread would only apply to regions that already have an active Founder, and essentially ensures those regions won't lose their Founder to inactivity. It has advantages, but a few downsides, too. Most critically, from my point of view, it's one of those ideas that's advertised as an R/D opt-out for roleplaying regions but contains incentives for everyone to use it, even people who like R/D, because it boosts regional defenses. So it's not actually a "quarantine RP regions from invasion and leave the rest alone" idea, but rather a "make all regions harder to invade" idea.
(Well, not "all," because it excludes regions who have already lost their Founder. But that's a pretty arbitrary distinction, seemingly based on the premise that if they've survived this long, they can probably struggle on. It's not a division based on whether a region wants to be RP or R/D.)
I'm glad that you actually took time to think about what I wrote. This solution was about a problem from 2013, which is still a problem in 2014! A suggestion, to make an amendment to the game, about something that I have personally seen happen. My very first region I joined, fell apart because the founder returned, but then "re-retired", and no one to carry on the torch. -- It just so happens that my idea could also solve a wider problem.[violet] wrote:So this version of Founder Succession I see as problematic. Not terrible, and certainly good for many regions, but bad for others. It essentially aims to undo a measure that is there deliberately: the way we bump regions into the R/D game after their Founder CTEs.
What would that achieve exactly? Would everyone create these special regions also, for protection? Eliminate R/D by attrition?[violet] wrote:In my eyes, the ideal version of a Founder Succession feature would only suit isolationist regions. Which is easier to say than implement, but that's the ideal: anyone can use it, but you wouldn't want to unless you really want to be cut off from the world. That means it has to come packaged with other measures that are only benefits if you're an RP region. Some things people have suggested here: entry into the region is by invitation only, or else the region is permanently passworded; the region has no WA Delegate; the region has a maximum population limit; nations cannot leave the region, or else can only move to other RP/isolationist regions; the region cannot have embassies; the region is excluded from the daily World Census.
Takaram wrote:Irony. Rule 4 prevents a repeal based on Rule 4 violations, meaning that Rule 4 does not comply with Rule 4. It should be struck down.
by Bears Armed » Thu Jul 10, 2014 2:19 am
[violet] wrote:I can rule out Founder Succession as a single feature where regions get to appoint new Founders and everything else stays the same. Because that would be extremely stifling for the invasion game. I've never ruled out the entire set of ideas containing some form of Founder Succession, which is still a possibility.
The Founder Succession proposal in this thread would only apply to regions that already have an active Founder, and essentially ensures those regions won't lose their Founder to inactivity. It has advantages, but a few downsides, too. Most critically, from my point of view, it's one of those ideas that's advertised as an R/D opt-out for roleplaying regions but contains incentives for everyone to use it, even people who like R/D, because it boosts regional defenses. So it's not actually a "quarantine RP regions from invasion and leave the rest alone" idea, but rather a "make all regions harder to invade" idea.
(Well, not "all," because it excludes regions who have already lost their Founder.
JURISDICTIONS wrote:Secondly, there is a Sede Vacante added to each transition. Whereby the WAD, is in Control during a transition of seven days! Seven!. Honestly, I wouldn't be opposed to a "Veto" function by that Delegate to stop a transfer, and force the region to become founder-less.
by JURISDICTIONS » Thu Jul 10, 2014 2:53 am
That isn't in my OP, its a suggestion. I want to know, what exactly is it that Violet is looking for, that would make this idea worth her time. Any ideas?Bears Armed wrote:JURISDICTIONS wrote:Secondly, there is a Sede Vacante added to each transition. Whereby the WAD, is in Control during a transition of seven days! Seven!. Honestly, I wouldn't be opposed to a "Veto" function by that Delegate to stop a transfer, and force the region to become founder-less.
That part of the idea I don't like, and would argue against: If R/D is supposed to be "a simulation of war" as some of its proponents claim, how many RL nations can't defend themselves during [peaceful] internal changes of government?
Takaram wrote:Irony. Rule 4 prevents a repeal based on Rule 4 violations, meaning that Rule 4 does not comply with Rule 4. It should be struck down.
by Esternial » Thu Jul 10, 2014 4:38 am
Evil Wolf wrote:Esternial wrote:From a marketing point-of-view, it makes no sense (Excluding examples such as the Yahoo Toolbar, but I think we all know their reputation), as it is 100% certain that people will be involved that won't get any fun out of being involved against their will.
Actually, I've recruited plenty of people from regions we've raided. Some of my best troops came from conquests and the raid piqued their interest in what raiding was and how to do it. To say that raiding is only fun for the raiders is being sort of disingenuous.
by Glen-Rhodes » Thu Jul 10, 2014 10:22 am
Sichuan Pepper wrote:If nations wish to interact with other regions they can use puppets. If they want to leave the region they let their nation CTE. Now this proposal is for players that want to have founder succession and not R/D.
Sichuan Pepper wrote:I think you will find Glen under your scenario that invaders will make use of such a region. They rarely leave a WA nation in the home region.
Sichuan Pepper wrote:I am sure they would appreciate founder succession in a home region while their WA's are out raiding. At least if WA is a criteria it will limit it to players that do not need a mobile WA.
by Sichuan Pepper » Thu Jul 10, 2014 12:45 pm
Mallorea and Riva wrote:Yeah but no one here can read. Literacy is a tool used by fendas, like IRC or morals.
by Hallowell » Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:52 pm
by Glen-Rhodes » Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:57 pm
Sichuan Pepper wrote:I am not talking about opening up their regions to attack. I am saying that invaders will use it in order to maintain a stronghold. In other words the founder of the current region The Black Riders can appoint a successor founder should they CTE. They do not keep WA nations in the stronghold (home region) as they use mobile WA's.
Sichuan Pepper wrote:I believe Violet wants this to be something that is rarely used and you are making a case for something that would be attractive to invaders while restricting Natives from taking part in a large part of the game. They cannot participate in WA activities or write resolutions.
by Esternial » Thu Jul 10, 2014 2:54 pm
Glen-Rhodes wrote:I don't think her goal is to make something that is rarely used, otherwise there's no point in doing anything at all. She just doesn't want a situation where every region has a strong incentive to opt-out, because it would 'kill' R/D. Coming up with an option where regions that sincerely do want to opt-out (and would pay a price to do so) can doesn't necessitate cutting them off entirely from the whole game. There are better ways to offer that option, like removing the WA from their region altogether.
by Whamabama » Thu Jul 10, 2014 5:10 pm
by Astarial » Thu Jul 10, 2014 5:49 pm
Glen-Rhodes wrote:Sichuan Pepper wrote:I am not talking about opening up their regions to attack. I am saying that invaders will use it in order to maintain a stronghold. In other words the founder of the current region The Black Riders can appoint a successor founder should they CTE. They do not keep WA nations in the stronghold (home region) as they use mobile WA's.
Yeah, and that's a feature, not a bug.
by Glen-Rhodes » Thu Jul 10, 2014 6:00 pm
Astarial wrote:How on earth is that a feature? It makes raider regions even more invulnerable to repercussions for raiding, while allowing them to keep raiding as they have been doing all along
Astarial wrote:I think the only thing that would keep this from being widely used would be to treat it like class regions - you can't leave once you've joined, all nations in the region are automatically in the WA, and no player in the region can have another WA outside the region.
by Astarial » Thu Jul 10, 2014 6:06 pm
Glen-Rhodes wrote:Astarial wrote:How on earth is that a feature? It makes raider regions even more invulnerable to repercussions for raiding, while allowing them to keep raiding as they have been doing all along
There's no suggestion anybody has put forth that cannot be used by raiders. Founder succession was never immune from raider use, either.
Seriously, everybody needs to get over themselves and this whole "but X is just going to help raiders/defenders!!!!" Nothing is going to ever be done if people keep dismissing ideas because there's potential for their use by a faction you don't like.
[/quote]Astarial wrote:I think the only thing that would keep this from being widely used would be to treat it like class regions - you can't leave once you've joined, all nations in the region are automatically in the WA, and no player in the region can have another WA outside the region.
That's something nobody will want to use. It's overkill. The shortest distance between two points is a line, but you guys keep wanting to make things complicated and excessive.
by Holy Trek » Thu Jul 10, 2014 6:10 pm
JURISDICTIONS wrote:Founder Succession
A Better Solution
Updated 3.0
First and foremost, regions depend on the founder to do many things. Many such regions that rely on a founder will rarely live beyond a founder's departure. Yes, there are exceptions. There are regions that have proven their worth without a founder. However, it is my first and foremost concern that we retain the communities here on NS. Providing a way for regional founders to pass on the torch of leadership would be a step in the right direction.
Further, all of this trouble between the Raiding/Defending community versus the Role Playing community sounds like it needs a better solution. I think that some of it has to do with Foundered regions losing a founder. I think some of it has to to with the fact that RP regions do need protection, but RL kind of steps in the way of our current Opt-out model of having a founder, if somehow the founder goes CTE.
This revamped proposal, hopefully, will be a better compromise.
I now give you: Founder Succession. (with some minor and major changes) (3.0)1. A selection named "Resign as Founder", when selected, would provide for change in the foundership between the current founder and a selected nation.
2. It takes an active foundership to implement change.
3. A CTE founder would not provide for a successor.
2. All founders have the ability to choose a successor.
3. The successor, upon appointment, will become a "Successive Founder". (name change to denote non-original status)
4. The original/previous founder cannot become founder again, unless chosen as a successor.
5. Founders must remain 'alive' as a founder for at least three (3) months before gaining the option to have a founder succession system.
6. Successive Founders must remain 'alive' as the new founder for at least six (6) months before gaining the option to renew the succession system.
7. The current founder when declaring resignation will force a change of succession to the appointed nation in seven (7) days. During this time the WA Delegate will be an executive authority until the time has expired, and the new successive founder is fully installed.
9. All other current mechanics for founders remain in effect, excepting the above.
10. This proposal is not retroactive, and should be dealt with via the mechanics proposed in the R/D summit, such as WA Custodians, and regional officers.
How to choose the successor: (3.0)1.To choose a successor, it would not be unlike the embassy request feature, where the founder sends a request to be accepted or rejected. A rejection, will not produce a successor, and the founder may try a different nation.
2. The installation of a successor takes seven (7) days (per above).
3. The appointment will be showed on the regional page.
4. Should a founder CTE before the Successor is installed, the region becomes founderless, and the WA Delegate will retain executive power.
Here is what this does: (3.0)1. It removes the need for re-founding, while still keeping the element of insecurity.
2. It may spur regional politics. (i.e. elections for a new founder, upon current founder letting the region know of retirement)
3. Allows for communities to maintain activity after the original founder has decided to move on to other things, such as real-life. (Regions have a higher community building success rates when a founder is present and active.)
4. When used, it removes the possibility of losing a founder who the region depends upon, and keeps the natural "opt-out" of R/D.Point 4 explained: Under current mechanics, time and time again, raiders have said that the best protection against a raid is to have an active founder. Raids rarely occur when an active founder is present. Therefore, this proposal reinforces that security by allowing a nation who is willing (and active) to be founder (by appointment to the foundership by the previous founder). Founders (and thusly regions) who don't remain that active will be hard pressed to even have the ability to choose a founder resignation.
This will not hurt the R/D game, because all regions that will have a founder will simply continue to have a founder. Further, founder change requires the WA Delegate to be unsecured for a week. We know raiders are not complaining about the current pickings of targets. Also remember, this is not retroactive, and it (1) will not give current founderless regions a new founder, (2) applies to new regions only. Founderless regions (and those created before implementation) will have to ask the WA Security Council for a Custodian and/or use regional officers.
5. If used by the founder, it reduces the possibility of newer non-founder regions to exist. Although, if the successive founder happens to be no good, the region can become founderless again.
6. All sides of the game can use it to their advantage, Raiders, Defenders, Non-R/D.Point 6 explained: If a founder chooses a rouge successor, there is possibility of total region destruction.
7. It removes the sticky political nature of trying to decide a new founder for a region, via World Assembly. Which is not really fair to those who do not participate there (this doesn't apply to custodians, since they would not be founders).
Here is what it does not do:1. The proposal is not retroactive. e.g. current founderless regions cannot gain a founder through this method, only new regions would be affected.
2. This does not allow for a direct chain of succession. The founder must exist within the world for three months as a founder before being given the option to choose a successor. If a founder CTE before the three month mark, the region will become founderless.
3. It does not rule out the WA Custodian idea. There will still be plenty of founderless regions in the game thanks to the possibility of CTE during the three/six month wait period.
4. It doesn't rule out the Regional Officers idea either, since the founder can choose whomever they would like to be the next founder.
Can you give your opinions? Please, stay on topic to this proposal, this is not a "my-game-is-better-than-your-game" thread. Thanks.
- Juris
by Esternial » Thu Jul 10, 2014 6:55 pm
Whamabama wrote:So I would make a residence into one of these regions count as their WA, even if they can not participate within the WA.
by Evil Wolf » Thu Jul 10, 2014 7:24 pm
Esternial wrote:Just because there are victims of raids that pick up the R/D game doesn't mean that we can just ignore those that don't enjoy it.
Kryozerkia wrote:In the good old days raiding was illegal
Crazy Girl wrote:Invading was never illegal
[violet] wrote:There is supposed to be an invasion game.
by JURISDICTIONS » Thu Jul 10, 2014 8:07 pm
JURISDICTIONS wrote:Founder Succession
A Better Solution
Updated 3.0
OP LAST UPDATE: 7.10.14First and foremost, regions depend on the founder to do many things. Many such regions that rely on a founder will rarely live beyond a founder's departure. Yes, there are exceptions. There are regions that have proven their worth without a founder. However, it is my first and foremost concern that we retain the communities here on NS. Providing a way for regional founders to pass on the torch of leadership would be a step in the right direction.
Further, all of this trouble between the Raiding/Defending community versus the Role Playing community sounds like it needs a better solution. I think that some of it has to do with Foundered regions losing a founder. I think some of it has to to with the fact that RP regions do need protection, but RL kind of steps in the way of our current Opt-out model of having a founder, if somehow the founder goes CTE.
This revamped proposal, hopefully, will be a better compromise.[THE SUCCESSION SYSTEM]
- A selection named "Resign as Founder", when selected, would provide for change in the foundership between the current founder and a selected nation.
- It takes an active foundership to implement change.
- A CTE founder would not provide for a successor.
- All founders have the ability to choose a successor.
- The successor, upon appointment, will become a "Successive Founder". (name change to denote non-original status)
- The original/previous founder cannot become founder again, unless chosen as a successor.
- Founders must remain 'alive' as a founder for at least three (3) months before gaining the option to have a founder succession system.
- Successive Founders must remain 'alive' as the new founder for at least six (6) months before gaining the option to renew the succession system.
- The current founder when declaring resignation will force a change of succession to the appointed nation in seven (7) days. During this time the WA Delegate will be an executive authority until the time has expired, and the new successive founder is fully installed.
- All other current mechanics for founders remain in effect, excepting the above.
- This proposal is not retroactive, and should be dealt with via the mechanics proposed in the R/D summit, such as WA Custodians, and regional officers.
[CHOOSING A SUCCESSOR]
- To choose a successor, it would not be unlike the embassy request feature, where the founder sends a request to be accepted or rejected. A rejection, will not produce a successor, and the founder may try a different nation.
- The installation of a successor takes seven (7) days (per above).
- The appointment will be showed on the regional page.
- Should a founder CTE before the Successor is installed, the region becomes founderless, and the WA Delegate will retain executive power.
[POSSIBLE EFFECTS]
- It removes the need for re-founding, while still keeping the element of insecurity.
- It may spur regional politics. (i.e. elections for a new founder, upon current founder letting the region know of retirement)
- Allows for communities to maintain activity after the original founder has decided to move on to other things, such as real-life. (Regions have a higher community building success rates when a founder is present and active.)
- When used, it removes the possibility of losing a founder who the region depends upon, and keeps the natural "opt-out" of R/D.
Point 4 explained: Under current mechanics, time and time again, raiders have said that the best protection against a raid is to have an active founder. -- Why don't we try out their advice? Clearly, they do not object to the idea. -- Raids rarely occur when an active founder is present. Therefore, this proposal reinforces that security by allowing a nation who is willing (and active) to be founder (by appointment to the foundership by the previous founder). Founders (and thusly regions) who don't remain that active will be hard pressed to even have the ability to choose a founder resignation.
This will not hurt the R/D game, because all regions that will have a founder will simply continue to have a founder. Further, founder change requires the WA Delegate to be unsecured for a week. We know raiders are not complaining about the current pickings of targets. Also remember, this is not retroactive, and it (1) will not give current founderless regions a new founder, (2) applies to new regions only. Founderless regions (and those created before implementation) will have to ask the WA Security Council for a Custodian and/or use regional officers.- If used by the founder, it reduces the possibility of newer non-founder regions to exist. Although, if the successive founder happens to be no good, the region can become founderless again.
- All sides of the game can use it to their advantage, Raiders, Defenders, Non-R/D.
Point 6 explained: If a founder chooses a rouge successor, there is possibility of total region destruction.- It removes the sticky political nature of trying to decide a new founder for a region, via World Assembly. Which is not really fair to those who do not participate there (this doesn't apply to custodians, since they would not be founders).
[LIMITATIONS]
- The proposal is not retroactive. e.g. current founderless regions cannot gain a founder through this method, only new regions would be affected.
- This does not allow for a direct chain of succession. The founder must exist within the world for three months as a founder before being given the option to choose a successor. If a founder CTE before the three month mark, the region will become founderless.
- It does not rule out the WA Custodian idea. There will still be plenty of founderless regions in the game thanks to the possibility of CTE during the three/six month wait period.
- It doesn't rule out the Regional Officers idea either, since the founder can choose whomever they would like to be the next founder.
[TOO LONG; DIDN'T READ]
- Original Founders may only gain the option to resign and then choose an heir after 3 months. "Successive Founders" must wait 6 months before the option to resign and replace is available again. If the region or founder CTEs, the region is no longer eligible for this option. Thus, only Active Founders are rewarded. This is not a contingency plan for CTE.
- It takes 7 days for the transfer from the Original Founder to the Successive Founder, during which, the WAD is the Executive of the region. Known as Sede Vacante.
[SUGGESTIONS]
- "Successive Founders" must have WAD approval before appointing another "Successive Founder".
- The feature could have a limited number of uses. This could be a One-Shot or Two-Shot option.
Can you give your opinions? Please, stay on topic to this proposal, this is not a "my-game-is-better-than-your-game" thread. Thanks.
- Juris
Takaram wrote:Irony. Rule 4 prevents a repeal based on Rule 4 violations, meaning that Rule 4 does not comply with Rule 4. It should be struck down.
by Bears Armed » Fri Jul 11, 2014 2:50 am
After a Founder has been within the region that they founded for 6 months (or for a full year?) they can designate a potential successor, with the consent of that potential successor. The founder does not have to resign once they make this appointment: This is a "just in case" precaution, rather than an immediate transfer of power.
If we want a one-word title for the designated successor, and one that does not automatically evoke thoughts of RL succession either by eelction or by hereditary right, then I suggest the gaelic term 'Tanist' (or is that spelled 'Tanaist' nowadays, instead?) as one possibility.
The Founder can, as with any other regional administration decision, cancel that appointment at any time... whether because the designated nation has become too inactive, the designated nation is still active but has moved to a different region, the designated nation has been revealed as a raider [or defender] sleeper, the founder decides that there's now a better candidate available, or whatever... even on a whim. Founder's privilege, after all.
They can then appoint a new candidate whenevr they want, without a further waiting period being necessary.
The designated successor can resign freely from that position at any stage, unless & until the Founder CTEs.
If the Founder CTEs then the designated successor initiallybecomes 'Regent', with all of a Founder's powers except the right to designate a potential successor themselves, for 3 months (or 6 months?). If the Founder returns during that period then they can, but do not have to, resume power: If they resume power then the Regent auotmatically returns to the 'designated succesor' position, unless either that nation itself or the founder decides otherwise. If the Founder chooses not to resume power then they have no other access to regional controls, unless they become Delegate... and if they use the controls as Delegate then that costs them the same amount of influence as the same actions would cost any other delegate.
After the initial 'regency' period has passed the former Regent becomes 'Founder', and if the old Founder returns at that stage then they no longer have the choice of resuming control. However the new Founder stills has to wait for another 3 (or 6?) months before they themselves can appoint a designated successor of their own.
An original [or successive] Founder who has CTed but later been restored can become designated successor for a later 'Founder' in the same region.
In regions where succession has taken place the WFE automatically lists original Founder, current Founder (or Regent), and any line of succession that has existed between them.
by Ravania Prima » Fri Jul 11, 2014 5:32 am
Bears Armed wrote:My version _
by Esternial » Fri Jul 11, 2014 5:37 am
Evil Wolf wrote:Esternial wrote:Just because there are victims of raids that pick up the R/D game doesn't mean that we can just ignore those that don't enjoy it.
Sure, but just because I throw a wild alcohol-fueled fling with strippers and live celebrity musicians and some people who attended hated it, doesn't mean I should never hold the same event ever again just because some people didn't enjoy it.
Hyperbole? Sure, but I'm just demonstrating the ridiculousness of that statement.
by Astarial » Fri Jul 11, 2014 6:49 am
Esternial wrote:Please don't use metaphors if you're going to abuse them incorrectly to try and make a point, and I sincerely hope that metaphor isn't actually your rationale behind your raiding
Ravania Prima wrote:This idea deals with the responsibility of being a founder and a well-balanced regional security.
by Bears Armed » Fri Jul 11, 2014 7:00 am
Astarial wrote:How is it balanced? Where is the tradeoff? What disincentivizes regions from doing this?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement