[IDEA] Security Council Resolution to Evict Founder

[Shadow Afforess]

I think most of the renewed debate about the possibility of invasion of Roleplaying-region invasions leans towards making "Gameplay" mechanics harder. That is the wrong solution entirely. The real problem is there is no effective way for angry Roleplayers to effectively "invade" raider regions like "The Black Riders" due to their founders. Roleplayers are left to vent on the forums instead because no gameplay action they take can have any effect on the effectiveness of TBR raids.

Obviously, with the problem in perspective, the solution is quite clear. Provide a means to evict founders and make once iron-clad fortresses weak again. A Security Council resolution to evict a founder (requiring a 66% supermajority to pass) would allow the NationStates World Assembly to truly serve a higher purpose and evict raiders from their seemingly impenetrable fortresses. It would encourage more gameplay, not less, and give Roleplayers the opportunity to strike back against the source of their anger.

The solution to the gameplay dilemma of roleplayers isn't more security, it's less.

[Ikania]

Great idea! It would force raider regions to keep a Delegate and make the task of raiding a lot harder. Although, they don't necessarily need a region as long as they've got a forum, but this would definitely be effective.

[Constaniana]

Right, because this won't get twisted around and used to try to attack more RP regions. First we were told having passwords was a good way of escaping the angry game we have no interest in playing, and most of us put them up, despite the fact that they discourage growth by making our regions more exclusive and paranoid. And now you want to make something that would strip away yet another one of the few means we have left to avoid having R/D forced onto us? We don't want ways to make GP more convenient for us to play; WE DON'T WISH TO PLAY IT AT ALL. I really hope this is a bad joke on your part.

[Eluvatar]

I, for one, would welcome our new SC overlords: I hate Founders having absolute power over a region.

Ignoring, for the moment, invader organizations which hide behind Founders, there have been innumerable cases of Founders abusing the communities they originally created. Oftentimes a founder will come back after a period of absence and proceed to throw their weight around. When the players who have kept the region going in their absence are unable to deal with them, this can lead to exodus, whether voluntary or forced. This sort of fragmentation could perhaps be reduced if Founders were not all-powerful and recognized their position could be lost if abused.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Afforess I love your balls. But this would never happen.

Raiders depend on being behind founder regions, so they don't have to confront the very negative emotions that occur when your own region gets destroyed.

Defenders would never go for this, because they're risk averse and don't want to give raiders any tools they don't already have.

Changes to military gameplay won't happen without one of those two groups supporting them.

[Shadow Afforess]

Afforess I love your balls. But this would never happen.

Raiders depend on being behind founder regions, so they don't have to confront the very negative emotions that occur when your own region gets destroyed.

Defenders would never go for this, because they're risk averse and don't want to give raiders any tools they don't already have.

Changes to military gameplay won't happen without one of those two groups supporting them.

If both groups hate the proposal, clearly it is fair!

[Mallorea and Riva]

Afforess I love your balls. But this would never happen.

Raiders depend on being behind founder regions, so they don't have to confront the very negative emotions that occur when your own region gets destroyed.

Defenders would never go for this, because they're risk averse and don't want to give raiders any tools they don't already have.

Changes to military gameplay won't happen without one of those two groups supporting them.

Really we don't *need* to have regions to operate out of. Just look at DEN, lord knows they lasted long enough while bouncing from region to region. And the Farkers initially kept their identity a secret, though I'm not overly familiar with their history. If Liberations are any evidence then we can see that this will only be used to target raiders and nazis. Seems pretty one sided.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I like this idea because I think it would be so unpopular that it would effectively galvanise support into finally seriously addressing R/D play. If regions who wanted nothing to do with R/D play had to confront the threat of losing their founders, which they have been told over and over again is their guaranteed opt-out card, there would be such outrage that this current affair would seem like a minor kerfuffle in contrast. When liberations were first being proposed, numerous people said that if anything messing with founders were introduced, they would flat-out leave the game.

As such, full support.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I like this idea because I think it would be so unpopular that it would effectively galvanise support into finally seriously addressing R/D play. If regions who wanted nothing to do with R/D play had to confront the threat of losing their founders, which they have been told over and over again is their guaranteed opt-out card, there would be such outrage that this current affair would seem like a minor kerfuffle in contrast. When liberations were first being proposed, numerous people said that if anything messing with founders were introduced, they would flat-out leave the game.

As such, full support.

You want to remove one of the solutions to the problem... in order to force admin to create a different solution to the problem?

[The Dark Star Republic]

You want to remove one of the solutions to the problem... in order to force admin to create a different solution to the problem?

Without granting the premise that founders are a solution at all given the difficulties and risks of refounding, yes: the current "status quo" is quite clearly only baring keeping a lid on simmering tensions, without truly resolving the situation.

However, I don't want to hijack off Afforess's topic into a discussion on my own views, so I'll leave it there.

[South Pacific Belschaft]

I'm all for the idea. It's utterly absurd that every single region involved in military GP hides behind a founder. The dynamic would be vastly more interesting if people involved in R/D could actually be attacked themselves.

[Unibot III]

Invaders would go regionless like the UDL, stuff like "Liberate Haven" would be more common and it'd probably only be used rarely on cases like Greece and Concosia.

Not sure if that's a plus or a negative overall. It'd be unlikely to have the effect people intend here (invaders care more about moving the goalposts to avoid the appearance of defeat, than they do their homes), but it might have a positive effect regardless.

[Cata Larga]

This idea is misled. Roleplayers have no wish to invade regions at all. Absolutely no wish. We merely want to be left along.

Even so, removing one of the last means for roleplayers, or anyone else who is not interested in playing the invasion game, to secure their regions? Absolutely terrible.

[Elke and Elba]

Dibs on this Afforess.

Though I'd say "evict" is too strong - what about the resolution removes executive powers? There are already game mechanics that allow founders to relinquish power, so this could be pretty much done easily. The 50% needed can be kept and it can obviously be repealed too.

Solves pretty much problems like Liberate Greece with a better mechanism than Liberation.

[Aeyariss]

All this because raider wish to invade a region? Most of the people here do not wish to play that R/D games. if thats the case make the raider region a founderless region. leave the rest of NS alone.

[Ravania Ultra]

I must say I like this idea, I was thinking along the same line. Something like condemned regions should get a non-executive founder and commended regions get an extra 'gaurdian' similar to a founder. Cause nowadays condemnations are just shiny badges for raider-regions...
The 66% idea is also good as it should have a larger input from the community.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I must say I like this idea, I was thinking along the same line. Something like condemned regions should get a non-executive founder and commended regions get an extra 'gaurdian' similar to a founder. Cause nowadays condemnations are just shiny badges for raider-regions...
The 66% idea is also good as it should have a larger input from the community.

So RP regions which are condemned for their excellent RP get nuked?

[Sichuan Pepper]

I like that commends / condemns could actually have some ramifications in regions but am concerned over friendly fire. As Evil Mall has said ^
It also logically follows that nations with a condemn / commend would gain / lose something with the badge?.

I do not much like the idea of evicting a founder. If the founder chooses to be evil then leave the region or condemn them.

[Ravania Ultra]

I must say I like this idea, I was thinking along the same line. Something like condemned regions should get a non-executive founder and commended regions get an extra 'gaurdian' similar to a founder. Cause nowadays condemnations are just shiny badges for raider-regions...
The 66% idea is also good as it should have a larger input from the community.

So RP regions which are condemned for their excellent RP get nuked?

http://www.nationstates.net/page=tag_search/type=region/tag=condemned

And those are?

[Mallorea and Riva]

So RP regions which are condemned for their excellent RP get nuked?

http://www.nationstates.net/page=tag_search/type=region/tag=condemned

And those are?

Wow are there really none? Jesus people get to work on that, that's a travesty. Modify the argument then, it will never be possible going forward to do that.

[Ravania Ultra]

Don't forget that it would install a safety on those regions too, it would be impossible to refound them as the condemnation would stick and you'd end up with an non-executive founder again.

It also logically follows that nations with a condemn / commend would gain / lose something with the badge?.

True, condemned nations could be barred from WA (not the player) Commended nations could get an extra WA-seat (for the commended nation).

[Sedgistan]

Commends and Condemns deliberately have no in-game effect. It means you can give them as a reward/punishment for behaviour without having to have a debate about whether the in-game consequences of the resolution category are worth it (rather than the debate being on the actual merits of the nominee).

If you're looking for new SC powers, they'd be new categories separate to to C/C resolutions, rather than changing how those work.

[Riftend]

As an idea I like it but when you dig deeper I find some issues with it:

- The founder becomes an evil raider guy and begins dictating the region. He did build it and it is kind of theirs - not everyone else's. If we are gonna do this the slippery slope a issue comes in where we can vote for people to have their accounts deleted or something like that.

- The Security shouldn't directly affect the running of regions (yes I'm anti liberations) but be there to reward/punish individuals or regions - nothing more.

- This is a more personal one but if someone gains access to the founder account as it is shared and they decide to - well wreck the place (The Greater democratic union II) they would just be voted out.

- Raiding groups use WA to raid - so they can't exactly vote on WA matters as they change the WA between their accounts quiet frequently - removing their choice on the matter that may directly affect them.

I just don't feel it is needed or should be implemented - there is my view

[Shadow Afforess]

If you're looking for new SC powers, they'd be new categories separate to to C/C resolutions, rather than changing how those work.

I am advocating for a completely new resolution type.

As an idea I like it but when you dig deeper I find some issues with it:

- The founder becomes an evil raider guy and begins dictating the region. He did build it and it is kind of theirs - not everyone else's. If we are gonna do this the slippery slope a issue comes in where we can vote for people to have their accounts deleted or something like that.

- The Security shouldn't directly affect the running of regions (yes I'm anti liberations) but be there to reward/punish individuals or regions - nothing more.

- This is a more personal one but if someone gains access to the founder account as it is shared and they decide to - well wreck the place (The Greater democratic union II) they would just be voted out.

- Raiding groups use WA to raid - so they can't exactly vote on WA matters as they change the WA between their accounts quiet frequently - removing their choice on the matter that may directly affect them.

I just don't feel it is needed or should be implemented - there is my view

Your issues aren't really issues, just your opinion on the game. The Security Council DOES already affect the operation of regions, you're opinion on whether it SHOULD is irrelevant.

[Sedgistan]

If you're looking for new SC powers, they'd be new categories separate to to C/C resolutions, rather than changing how those work.

I am advocating for a completely new resolution type.

Yep, I understand you are - just some others that posted here were suggesting modifying C/Cs, hence my post.

As for your suggestion, I'm sure a great deal of fun could be had with it - though I'd question whether we'd just see "De-Founder Nazi Europe IV", as most RPers don't have an interest in going after raiders (they'd prefer not to deal with gameplay), defenders don't generally attack raiders, and raiders wouldn't have the support to successfully target anyone.

There's also the matter of founders being considered "untouchable" - they're the ultimate level of protection for a region, and "De-Founder Prominent_RP_Region" would cause even more upset than Liberate Haven (even if it wouldn't have a chance of success).