The approach "that's just how it is" won't cut it. At least not if you're trying to be realistic.
My own perception of this entire issue is that pressing unreasonable demands onto Raiders is getting us nowhere. While I am a member of the RP'ing community, I do feel that protecting our own should not come at a painful cost for the R/D community, seeing as they have equal right (if not more, according to official policy) to enjoy their respective ways of passing the time on this website.
In order to do so, I've contacted a few (by which I mean two so far) Raiders to establish a possible solution.
As it stands, opting out is simply not an option. Giving a region the power to gain absolute protection is a demand we cannot make, as it would potentially ruin the R/D game if abused, and regulating it is something I personally consider impossible, and I'm sure this won't get the Mod staff too warm for the idea either.
The thing is, though, many Non-R/D'ers don't really need regions. What they - what we need are the elements provided by regions that allow us a degree of organisation.
The fact of the matter is: we can't have 100% safe regions, save for those with password protection (and even that has started to become less of certainty). So instead, of trying to push two negatively charged pole towards eachother, why not try something completely different?
What I'm proposing is this: Intergovernmental organisations.
I'll outline my draft concept below.
Apologies. This is still very much in alpha state at the moment. Text in blue represents an alternative draft version alongside the original.
✦ What it is
Simply put, it's like a Region but with many more means of protection. I've tried to include several suggestions that were deemed too strong for Regions. I'd like to stress that IGO's are not a replacement for a region. Your nation will STILL be in a region, but it can ALSO join an IGO.
✦ How it works
Creation
Creating one of these would require multiple Founders to sign a treaty of sorts. Once a sufficient amount of Founders has signed it, the organisation will be created within a certain amount of time. Let's go with a week for now. Within this week, more Founders may be invited by the existing Founding members, up to a certain limit (5?). Any new Founding member must receive a majority vote from the existing ones. After the week is over, the IGO is created and member states can apply to join.2
A Founder can create an IGO and will hold absolute power over it. An IGO will exist as a separate entity next to regions.
Joining
Simply "moving" is not possible, but requires approval.
Approval can be given by one of the Founding members, the Representative or a vote by the member states. "Yea" votes must exceed a certain fixed number (either a fixed value or one that can be edited by the Founders) in order for the member state to be admitted.
Member states can be part of different regions.
A Member state's vote in approvals or elections carries more weight the longer they are present within an IGO.
Simply "moving" is not possible. IGO's would either have a permanent password or members must apply and require approval before being added as a member.
For approvals, this would rely on the Founder, essentially requiring the IGO's founder to be more active (or the account to be shared by active users) in exchange for better protection, as password can be leaked and used to invite unwanted guests.
(optional) Being part of an IGO could have an impact on influence gain within the region.
The Representative
Basically, similar to a WA delegate. Representative are also elected by the member states of the IGO. As a nice touch, I'd suggest that the "title" of Representative should be editable (for example, to "President"). As for the Founding members' role in this:
(Option 1) Votes by Founding members carry more weight than those of regular member states, and this weight is relative to the amount of member states. This means that a certain majority vote by Founding members will always determine the outcome of a representative election.
(Option 2) Founding members should have the option to veto a candidate. (perhaps preferable?)
Both will technically allow Founding members to determine the outcome of a vote, but Founding members can (and should) allow their member states to elect their representative (provided they do not suspect this representative to be a possible danger to the IGO); they can even combine this with Forumside Roleplay.
The power of a representative is similar to that of a delegate, though I haven't put much thought into the specifics.
Perhaps it should be possible for Representative to be promoted to Founder after certain prerequisites (time, seniority, votes, etc.) have been met?
An IGO is not affiliated with the WA, and thus does not have a WA Delegate. In order to allow a degree of additional administration where it is needed, a representative of sorts may be appointed by the Founder in order to handle certain aspects of administration. This comes at the cost of safety, as a Founder may always choose a nation with bad intentions as representative, though may provide a nice touch - as it allows an individual to be 'elected' (likely via elections within the forums, though roleplay) within IGO's that choose to and subsequently put into power by the Founder.
Certain actions by the representative (editing the WFE of the IGO) may or may not require an approval by the Founder, to compensate for the possibility of the representative having bad intentions.
Founder succession
Founder of IGOs should be able to pass on their executive powers to someone they deem suitable for the task, giving retiring NS'ers the chance to leave their work in good hands.
Founder of IGOs should be able to set a successor in the event the CTE or actively pass on their executive powers to someone they deem suitable for the task in the event they want to retire and leave their work in good hands.
Setting a successor should be optional. In case a Founder chooses not to, the organisation will disband as soon as its Founder CTEs. This will allow IGOs with an active/shared Founder account to add a supplemental level of security which will utterly prevent any chance of raiding to occur.
Evidently, if a successor is set and who it is should remain hidden from all guests, members and even the successor themselves.
WFE and The IGO Message Board
My initial concept of the WFE and Message Board is just to have an identical system to the WFE and RMB. Seems like the most obvious choice. The fact that IGOs would allow members from across different regions to join would make it a sort of inter-regional RMB of sorts, thus both the RMB and "IGOMB" can be used by one nation for different reasons (idle banter, organisation, etc.). The WFE would naturally be different as well.
✦ What this means
First and foremost, "Nationstates is a free simulation game." Adding Intergovernmental Organisations would provided another layer of simulation to the game. Though the initial framework I have envisioned is largely pragmatic, there is definitely part of refinement at a later time.
The IGO entity would provide a safe medium to organise RP'ers and their Forumside activities via an alternative of the World Factbook Entry (different name needed?), which is usually one of the most valuable aspects of a RP'ing region. Essential information can be shared on the IGO Message Board and the IGO overall stands at a significantly reduced risk of being raided and tampered with.
Currently, I imagine the IGOs to be considered illegal to raid.1
In the event that both the Raiding community and the Mods do not agree to this, making it legal will create a new challenge for Raiders. Given their plethora of defenses, IGOs would be hard (preferably impossible) to raid. In fact, successfully raiding one would likely require cloak and dagger, most likely relying on one of the executive leaders of an IGO to make a fatal mistake rather than "invade and seize control" (simplified representation, I know).
However, we should establish firmly that IGO's should NOT become equivalents to regions within the R/D game, but primarily considered tools for non-R/D'ers. Any future changes should be made with that in mind.
The IGO entity would provide a safe medium to organise Forum dwellers and their Forumside activities via an alternative of the World Factbook Entry (different name needed?), which is usually one of the most valuable aspects of a RP'ing region. Essential information can be shared on the IGO Message Board and the IGO overall stands at a significantly reduced risk (if not 0%) of being raided and tampered with.
IGOs would not be made illegal to raid, but it should be strongly discouraged. As the only way to gain access to administration controls lies in the hands of the Founder, it will be up to them to ensure the safety of the IGO. The elements within an IGO that make the organisation susceptible for raids (Founder succession and appointing a representative) are both optional, so using them will be on the Founder's own discretion.
AMENDMENTS
Possible amendments to this proposal are based on input from other players, primarily Mods that stipulate what aspects of this proposal can or cannot achieve. These should also be discussed.
- Making IGO's "illegal to raid" is, in most likelihood impossible, thus we should ensure the IGO's defenses are impeccable.
- Having multiple Founding Members poses a greater risk (partly due to the fact that power can also be passed on by each Founder respectively, increasing the chance of a "bad apple" getting executive control), and should thus be replaced by a single, full-executive de-facto dictator who can pass on his executive power. Thus, passing on executive control will be a much more serious matter, requiring thorough consideration.
