[IDEA] Security Council Resolution to Evict Founder

[Shadow Afforess]

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

I understood that, but a lot of people were starting to conflate my idea and C/C proposals. I am not interested in modifying C/C's, that is a separate can of worms.

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).

[violet] has ruled time and again that no one can "opt-out" of the gameplay aspects of NationStates. Roleplayers are free to complain about this reality, but the fact of the matter is that changing an admins opinion on such a topic would be nigh impossible. If an opinion on such an important issue can not be changed, then the opinion should be embraced instead. That is what this proposal does.

[Whiskum]

Far from making gameplay more dynamic, this would cause all regions which are not committed to military gameplay to avoid it or indeed any controversy.

Raider groups may well not care about the security of their own regions if this potentially creates the option of expanding targets for them (although in practice I doubt the Security Council would pass resolutions de-foundering regions for raiders, so this change would ultimately come down to a one-sided method of targeting raiders and any other unpopular region) - I should stress that I have not asked them, so I do not know, but I imagine that a region committed to the raider-defender game as its primary focus might enjoy a more risky environment in which there is more for them to play for.

However, gameplay regions which raid but which do so as a side focus, such as for foreign policy reasons, and which are not fundamentally raider, would no longer have the same incentive to do so. The LKE, TNI and Albion, and similar regions, raid because it is in their interests to do so. The act of raiding is unpopular - but at present game-wide popularity does not come into the equation, we do not need to care about what non-allies think. Allowing the SC, which often passes anti-raider and pro-defender resolutions, to target unpopular regions in this way would change the interests of these regions and others.

The result would be that all political gameplay regions would have an active incentive to avoid unpopularity and to secure their own regions. Thus, rather than seeing political gameplay regions using their armed forces as an instrument of foreign policy, you would see raiding confined to those who love it; those prepared to risk having their region de-foundered for it. In the end this would render military gameplay less lively, more predictable and less political.

Military gameplay should be open to regions who are not committed raiders/defenders and who care first about other things, namely a stable domestic region. The effect of rendering unpopular regions vulnerable is such that only those really committed to raiding would embrace it: likewise anything else controversial. Regions should be allowed to engage in military activity while enjoying the benefits of a guaranteed stable domestic community.

Those benefits are not exclusive: any group of people can build a stable community by founding a region under the present structures. Ultimately, no founderless region which is not passworded or secured with a very high number of endorsements is ever really safe - by maintaining a founderless region as your group's base, you accept that - however you also have the opportunity to build your community (or rebuild it) around a founded region and thereby gaining true security. Founded regions are the only true security in this game and are the precondition on which stable regional communities are built. If you compromise that edifice of stability by features like this SC mechanism, the risk will be to seriously undermine the spheres of activity that rest on it.

[Riftend]

I made rather clear it was a personal opinion now didn't I? My opinion being that the Security coucal should affect nothing in gameplay aside from giving a region a gold star for being a defender or a big bad angry face if they were naughty and raided someone - I am aware this is not everyone's opinion.

This here is a terrible idea as all raiding regions would be put through constantly having their founder kicked and ultimately having to regionless or change regions every few days - So a complete destruction of a gameplay aspect. The people who would be affected most by this would have no say in the matter - Fairly undemocratic having the people who have negative views towards someone deciding their fate....main reason why in court systems the judge has to step down if there is a conflict of interest.

If people are so butthurt about having a crap founder do as I did and found our own region. Quiet often the reason people hate on their founder has nothing to do with whether or not they are evil - but because they don't realise how much work is involved in the job that you can't exactly take a break from. Everyone expects our attention and you are told to make every one happy - It doesn't happen.

All I can see from this I 100 proposals a week of people who don't like their founder because he didn't vote for them or something like that.

The last issue is this would be the regions problem with the founder and not the rest of the world. No one would really know whether or not the founder is evil because majority of the world does not live in said region.

Seriously this is a terrible idea.

EDIT: Removed a Quote and Removed a sentance

[Astarial]

However, gameplay regions which raid but which do so as a side focus, such as for foreign policy reasons, and which are not fundamentally raider, would no longer have the same incentive to do so. The LKE, TNI and Albion, and similar regions, raid because it is in their interests to do so. The act of raiding is unpopular - but at present game-wide popularity does not come into the equation, we do not need to care about what non-allies think. Allowing the SC, which often passes anti-raider and pro-defender resolutions, to target unpopular regions in this way would change the interests of these regions and others.

The result would be that all political gameplay regions would have an active incentive to avoid unpopularity and to secure their own regions. Thus, rather than seeing political gameplay regions using their armed forces as an instrument of foreign policy, you would see raiding confined to those who love it; those prepared to risk having their region de-foundered for it. In the end this would render military gameplay less lively, more predictable and less political.

Alternatively, it could render it more political - if regions like The LKE, TNI, and Albion want to keep raiding as they have been, they would need to guarantee their protection by, for example, allying with prominent GCRs (something all of those regions already do). If it's included in treaties that allies must stomp against any attempt to remove one another's founders, and the allies are strong enough in combination, political regions that raid would be able to continue to do so without concern.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I think the point Whiksum is making (though I'm sure he'll say I'm wrong) is that TNI, LKE, and Albion don't want to be the "R" of R/D. They don't see themselves as raiders. They merely see raiding as an activity that is their interests. They want an "opt-out" of R/D, too. They just want to keep raiding while not having to be raiders, and without a founder, it's suddenly more difficult to maintain their position.

[Astarial]

I think the point Whiksum is making (though I'm sure he'll say I'm wrong) is that TNI, LKE, and Albion don't want to be the "R" of R/D. They don't see themselves as raiders. They merely see raiding as an activity that is their interests. They want an "opt-out" of R/D, too. They just want to keep raiding while not having to be raiders, and without a founder, it's suddenly more difficult to maintain their position.

Right, but they can keep doing that and still keep their founders by politicking more heavily.

[Whiskum]

However, gameplay regions which raid but which do so as a side focus, such as for foreign policy reasons, and which are not fundamentally raider, would no longer have the same incentive to do so. The LKE, TNI and Albion, and similar regions, raid because it is in their interests to do so. The act of raiding is unpopular - but at present game-wide popularity does not come into the equation, we do not need to care about what non-allies think. Allowing the SC, which often passes anti-raider and pro-defender resolutions, to target unpopular regions in this way would change the interests of these regions and others.

The result would be that all political gameplay regions would have an active incentive to avoid unpopularity and to secure their own regions. Thus, rather than seeing political gameplay regions using their armed forces as an instrument of foreign policy, you would see raiding confined to those who love it; those prepared to risk having their region de-foundered for it. In the end this would render military gameplay less lively, more predictable and less political.

Alternatively, it could render it more political - if regions like The LKE, TNI, and Albion want to keep raiding as they have been, they would need to guarantee their protection by, for example, allying with prominent GCRs (something all of those regions already do). If it's included in treaties that allies must stomp against any attempt to remove one another's founders, and the allies are strong enough in combination, political regions that raid would be able to continue to do so without concern.

The consequence of that scenario is to concentrate increasing power into the hands of certain GCRs directly at the expense of large UCRs.

At present, having a powerful military gives foreign affairs advantages to large UCRs. Under the model you present, it's a hindrance that needs buying.

Moreover, the risk would still remain very great: in the case of the UIAF regions, there is very defined anti-UIAF GCR bloc (TRR, TP, Lazarus) and the range of the votes in the World Assembly (never mind individual nations) extends well beyond a list of regions that the UIAF regions could ally with. It would present no secure guarantee against an outcome which could only be described as a complete and unmitigated catastrophe that could not be contemplated.

Raiding at the moment is an advantageous add-on for political gameplay regions: not something which they like for itself, but an add-on which if they utilise they can gainfrom. With this change, that add-on risks losing these regions their founders and potentially increases their dependence on others.

Why keep such an impediment? The entire balance of calculation in relation to whether to raid or not changes.

---

You say, 'it could render it more political': that depends what you mean. If by 'it', you mean military gameplay, the risk of political gameplay regions no longer wishing to participate in an activity which is now a political disadvantage for them means that it would make military gameplay less political.

It would add a political element, but only in the sense that it would alter an already uneven balance of power even further in the direction of GCRs.

Finally, while obviously the UIAF regions' examples illustrate my point, my comments can be applied to other political gameplay regions as well.

Indeed, more so, because the alliances you point to the UIAF regions as holding are not necessarily going to exist for other UCRs.

User-created regions should have the capacity to fashion and implement a foreign policy which includes military action - with relative ease.

[Astarial]

That's a fair point, and you're right - it would give GCRs more power and prominence and put smaller UCRs at greater risk, thereby keeping them from participating. Neither of those are things I support.

[Klaus Devestatorie]

I sympathise with the intent behind the proposal, but the regions that in a perfect world would deserve this the most are the same regions that would have the least practical or emotional attachment to their previous home webpage region, and as a result... what's the point? :|

[Glen-Rhodes]

Why is everybody assuming that raiders have no attachment to their regions? There is no UDL of raiders and there hasn't been for a very long time. Raiders would definitely see it as a huge blow to have their own region raided.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Riftend]

Why is everybody assuming that raiders have no attachment to their regions? There is no UDL of raiders and there hasn't been for a very long time. Raiders would definitely see it as a huge blow to have their own region raided.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gotta disagree with ya mate

If it came down to no founder raiding organisations would have their citizens live EVERYWHERE and operate from an offsite forum. It'd work fine - I still don't support this though.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Why is everybody assuming that raiders have no attachment to their regions? There is no UDL of raiders and there hasn't been for a very long time. Raiders would definitely see it as a huge blow to have their own region raided.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gotta disagree with ya mate

If it came down to no founder raiding organisations would have their citizens live EVERYWHERE and operate from an offsite forum. It'd work fine - I still don't support this though.

It'd "work fine" obviously -- defenders have already proven that with the UDL. Whether or not it would work doesn't have any bearing on whether or not raiders would see the fall of their own regions as a defeat. History has shown that raiders are for more attached to their regions than people in this thread are suggesting. There are no founderless raider orgs. There is no Raider UDL. Raiders even trumpet their victory whenever they take a region associated with a defender org, showing that they believe regions do matter.

[Linux and the X]

[violet] has ruled time and again that no one can "opt-out" of the gameplay aspects of NationStates.

Uh, no. The ruling has always been that having a founder is the sole opt-out to r/d, despite the difficulty of refounding a large region, especially one being targeted by raiders. (What is it with you misciting rulings?) You're suggesting taking away the one accepted way to opt out of r/d. Keep in mind that every other aspect of the game is opt-in; your preferred part is the only one that people can be forced into without doing anything. Your proposed purpose for this idea is to allow regions that have been raided to get revenge; that's a giant load of crap and you know it: those regions have no desire to participate in r/d. The only real use for this would be to force everyone to participate in r/d, even those who have gone to the effort of utilising the long-standing sole opt-out.

[Benevolent Thomas]

Invaders would go regionless like the UDL

Yeah, I think this is what will happen as well. I do not like this proposal very much, although I applaud Afforess for his creativity. Wasn't there recently a TRT article that claimed that the GCRs basically determine the outcome of every SC vote? "Evict Founder" SC proposals will make the GCRs even more powerful and players would flock to them in order to influence their votes. This could be used to strip both Grub and Evil Wolf of their foundership, lets just think about that for a minute. That's what the SC would devolve into. tit-for-tat founder evictions to carry out vendetta invasions/griefings.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Invaders would go regionless like the UDL

Yeah, I think this is what will happen as well. I do not like this proposal very much, although I applaud Afforess for his creativity. Wasn't there recently a TRT article that claimed that the GCRs basically determine the outcome of every SC vote? "Evict Founder" SC proposals will make the GCRs even more powerful and players would flock to them in order to influence their votes. This could be used to strip both Grub and Evil Wolf of their foundership, lets just think about that for a minute. That's what the SC would devolve into. tit-for-tat founder evictions to carry out vendetta invasions/griefings.

There is a legitimate point to be made by pointing out that historically raiders have clung to region names.

[Oaledonia]

[violet] has ruled time and again that no one can "opt-out" of the gameplay aspects of NationStates. Roleplayers are free to complain about this reality, but the fact of the matter is that changing an admins opinion on such a topic would be nigh impossible. If an opinion on such an important issue can not be changed, then the opinion should be embraced instead. That is what this proposal does.

She also promised us that we would have options to defend ourselves.
As it stands, both the Founder status and passwords were said to be our defense. Without the founder, we are once again effectively defenseless, and it would force Violet to implement something else. Lest she be make a liar of herself.

[Glen-Rhodes]

That's what the SC would devolve into. tit-for-tat founder evictions to carry out vendetta invasions/griefings.

I'm not sure how that's any different, fundamentally, from what the R/D game (including the SC) already is.

[Northrop-Grumman]

Yeah, no. That'll remove the one last barrier non-R/D folks have to being completely annihilated regionwise. At that point, I'd just let my own region timeout and decamp to TRR where I'll just let everything rot away and never interact with anyone gameside again. There's no real point in having a region then if it can be snatched away from you by a vote. Might as well do like a select few folks do and just only see the gameside to log in so that you can go directly to the forums.

[Alvalero]

Against.
While it makes things interesting it is little more than a tool which will be abused to the point of making military gameplay laughable.
UCR's with founders shouldn't be punished for having active founders.
Same goes for founders who decide to become dictators of the region they created(get a condemnation proposal going if you feel so strongly about them). They founded the region they can do whatever they like with it. At the end of the day the founder made the region for a reason and should reenforce whatever twisted vision they have for the region on it. If people don't like it then they can leave and either find a region which suits their views or found their own region.