[Idea] Only the last person in a region can refound it

[Bears Armed]

I'd missed the point about raiders potentially clearing & refounding regions using this tool, and seen only the potential for currently founderless non-R/D regions to refound before they were attacked. Support withdrawn... Unless, maybeso, people think that fixing it so that this rule would only work if the region hadn't had a new delegate take office for some reasonable amount of time beforepaw would be a reasonable solution to that conundrum?

[The Blaatschapen]

I'd missed the point about raiders potentially clearing & refounding regions using this tool, and seen only the potential for currently founderless non-R/D regions to refound before they were attacked. Support withdrawn... Unless, maybeso, people think that fixing it so that this rule would only work if the region hadn't had a new delegate take office for some reasonable amount of time beforepaw would be a reasonable solution to that conundrum?

Raiders would just wait it out.

[The Leningrad Union]

This would cause A LOT of problems and make regions harder for everyone. We can't make site features with R/D in mind because most NSers don't participate in it and I think the way refounding works is great now. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

AGAINST

[Bears Armed]

I'd missed the point about raiders potentially clearing & refounding regions using this tool, and seen only the potential for currently founderless non-R/D regions to refound before they were attacked. Support withdrawn... Unless, maybeso, people think that fixing it so that this rule would only work if the region hadn't had a new delegate take office for some reasonable amount of time beforepaw would be a reasonable solution to that conundrum?

Raiders would just wait it out.

So, then, no.
I'll just support the idea of a decent 'Founder Succession' method instead.

[Parhe]

I support this. It gives something to everyone, raiders, defenders, and those wanting to stay out.

Is there a way the refound, if say done within an update, the RMB could be intact, or an option for that. It is the only really difficult thing to save, although possible, and so seems to be the only thing holding some regions back.

[Misley]

Is there a way the refound, if say done within an update, the RMB could be intact, or an option for that. It is the only really difficult thing to save, although possible, and so seems to be the only thing holding some regions back.

The RMB is lost when a region CTEs, according to Ballotonia. The only way to preserve it is to save a copy before refounding. Preferably, save a copy of both the "Forum View" (which includes Post IDs) and the Region API Messages shard (which includes timestamps, raw code, and short nation names) and combine the two into a database.

[Wordy]

Ideal would be a safe way for Natives to refound while not giving invaders an easy way to refound. It is a fine balance. In my opinion this is not the way to do it.

A WA resolution to refound would be a safer and more political option. It would not remove the threat of invaders destroying a region however might lend a more stealth approach as support would be needed from the general NS community. It would give Natives a way to make their case much like Lib resolutions currently do.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Involving the SC might be a decent option for exceptional cases like Haven, but do we really think the SC is going to pass a refound resolution on every single founderless region that doesn't want to participate in R/D? It also ignores the biggest concern, which is that these regions don't want to rely on the SC for their security.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Involving the SC might be a decent option for exceptional cases like Haven, but do we really think the SC is going to pass a refound resolution on every single founderless region that doesn't want to participate in R/D? It also ignores the biggest concern, which is that these regions don't want to rely on the SC for their security.

Even if it would, would we want it to?

[Wordy]

It does not need to be the only option. I imagine that regions can still be refounded taking the risky way to do it. However if there is a community that wishes to do it safely this would give them the option.
The thousand or so regions that have only one or two puppets placed now can still just move out and refound while taking the risk of being sniped.

[Nephmir]

Well I also suggested that a proposal could be passed to conserve a founderless region - like turning it into a Warzone, bans are temporary, influence freezes wherever it's currently at, and the region can't CTE even if emptied. Might that work?

Plus regions can already opt-out, as explained previously, and then rely on the SC as a last resort.

[Glen-Rhodes]

So it's not actually an idea to make refounding less dangerous for those regions that don't want to be involved in R/D. It's just an idea to make refounding easier for regions that can make a popular case to the SC.

[Wordy]

You are being obtuse Glen. At the least an active community can make a case to refound safely. There is no easy option when refounding. I do not see why you want to rule out the use of the SC for those willing to go that rout. There should be more options not less.
Anyway this is moving away from the OP. My arguments against this are that it makes it easier for invaders. Invaders btw are less likely to use the SC to refound.

EDIT : fixed error

[Glen-Rhodes]

You are being obtuse Glen. At the least an active community can make a case to refound safely. There is no easy option when refounding. I do not see why you want to rule out the use of the SC for those willing to go that rout. There should be more options not less.

The issue I have is that you're taking an idea that is intended to provide a means for all founderless regions to refound in a much easier and much safer way, and using it as a platform to advocate a new Security Council resolution that will only be for the elite few founderless regions who are popular enough to get defenders and WA Delegates on their side. The pattern in this game has been for somebody to come along and suggest a change that would actually have an impact, and then somebody else to suggest a milder change and parade it as a significant improvement. Then everybody coalesces around that change and pats themselves on the back, while the people who still want to have an effective means to opt out of R/D are yet again ignored and given the shaft.

If you want to propose a change, come up with something that will help everybody. That's what I proposed this change for. If you oppose it, then think of something better that will help all founderless regions who don't want to be in R/D.

[Nephmir]

Thought I'd give this a bump now that 'Liberate You-know-what' has died down.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

It's relevant to Tofuline and TUSG both being hawked.

[Nephmir]

It's relevant to Tofuline and TUSG both being hawked.

I may have an axe to grind, but this is not a result of that; this was brought up before that became relevant.

But yes, it is now relevant.

This should not count as a victory; once a region has been emptied, it is by definition already secured and won. You can't just swoop in and steal it after the refound is going to take place and hold it up like you deserve it and conquered it by rights. Regions are protected, why can't they be protected during a refound?

If a password is in place, no SC Liberation has been imposed on the region, and it is emptied, nobody can get in anyway, so it's already game over. So why not just accept that the battle has been lost and protect the region name for whatever native or foreign force seized the region? That is true victory.

Native refounds too. Tofuline, for instance, as you mentioned, was intercepted by Raiders like it was a victory.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Tofuline was not merely intercepted, we had a sleeper for weeks. If more than just shadow was on, we would have jumped in right prior to update and seized delegacy, refounding on our own time, since we had the password. That leads back to the whole discussion earlier in the thread, but suffice to say that in a case like this, if that rule had been in effect we simply would have ensured two members were online and ready and gone about it slightly differently.

As for the "it's over" thing, while that could be considered "fair" it kills a lot of last minute excitement, and last chances. A region like Anarchy (when it's day comes) could be sniped by defenders if they were vigilant. Odds are there will be several raiders all ready to try at the appointed time, but even a single other party stands a chance. By taking that chance away, you kill hope. You kill excitement. You make it game over sooner.

I think there's pros and cons to both ways, both well expressed.

As is, either side can steal the other's refound. That can work for good or bad. If this went down, nobody can steal a refound. This can be used for both good and bad. I think there's more potential for bad there, but that's my opinion.