[Change #3] Regional Officers

[Sichuan Pepper]

I imagine this would cause puppet flooding of regions in order to gain more officer seats. Unless you were thinking of basing it on WA numbers?
This would cause some problems for regions that Defend / invade as it is common to have WA's out of region so seems a penalty for their regions. Perhaps it could be tied to regional influence?
Easiest would be for a set amount of officers being available in each region regardless of the numbers of nations.

[Frisbeeteria]

It may has already been discussed in the previous pages of this thread, but I will be offering again my two cents.

The number of Officers should be proportionate to the size of the region. If the region is tagged as Small you have 0 officers (or 1, to be "politically fair"), Medium you can have maximum of 1 officer, Large you'd have up to maximum 2 officers and anything over that (Huge etc) you can have up to 3 officers. Or, if the numbers are maxed at 2 then things scale accordingly.

I'm not seeing any compelling reason to reopen this portion of the discussion. Some people like the idea, others don't. The core justification seems to be some sort of reward for having a larger region. Given that there has been no admin post indicating support (or lack thereof) for this idea, it's mostly pointles to keep discussing it. Maybe ROs will be role-defined, like "Recruiting Officer", "Vice Delegate", or other specific roles. Limiting those roles by region size is counterproductive. If roles can be defined by the Founder or Delegate, it stil seems to me that smaller regions may have just as great a need for multiple ROs as larger regions. Sure, it's silly for a one-nation region to have 10 officers (all the same nation, in any case), but who does it hurt?

It just seems to me that the slow, steady stream of posts to this topic aren't producing anything but hot air. Unless it's a genuine new idea, let's stop posting/gravedigging about RO numbers.

[Sichuan Pepper]

Fris it is listed as a coming game change so I do not see how it does not have admin support.
Now I believe you are being unfair instructing players not to post....These changes were announced as coming over 2 years ago and if it is gravedig then it could also be a way to keep it alive.
Last thing anyone wants to see is Admin deciding players have no interest in the changes and then not go ahead with them.

[Sedgistan]

I think Fris is commenting on the suggestion for region-sized based limits on the number of ROs you can have, not on the RO project as a whole.

[Nouvelle Tealand]

I think that this proposal would be really valuable to the gameplay community. Within my region, for example, we give our citizens roles such as:
- Minister for Regional Promotion
- Minister of Foreign Affairs
- Minister of Defence
- Assosiate Justice
- Minister for Internal Affairs

But the problem with this is that when they want to do something, for example the minister of defence wants to eject a nation, the minister for Regional Promotion wants to change the welcome telegram or our factbook, the minister of foreign affairs wants to reject or accept an embassy request, the minister for internal affairs or anothe citizen wants to create a poll... It all has to go through the founder and the WA, which creates a whole load of bureaucracy and almost renders their positions pointless as they cannot do anything without going through us first. Which I a shame as positions such as these really add veracity to a democratic region.

I would also like to say that in regard to the spending of regional influence I think there should be two types of RO - WA created and Founder created. As the WA and presumably their motivations can change from time to time I propose that it costs them regional influence to create ministers, and in turn it costs those ministers some influence to perform roles, but not too much. Then, founder made ROs will require either no influence or very little influence to perform actions that do not cost the WA its regional influence (i.e. banjecting will still cost), as Founders do not change and have the best interests of their region at heart.

[Rhina]

I would also like to say that in regard to the spending of regional influence I think there should be two types of RO - WA created and Founder created. As the WA and presumably their motivations can change from time to time I propose that it costs them regional influence to create ministers, and in turn it costs those ministers some influence to perform roles, but not too much. Then, founder made ROs will require either no influence or very little influence to perform actions that do not cost the WA its regional influence (i.e. banjecting will still cost), as Founders do not change and have the best interests of their region at heart.

Which set of rules would you apply to Warzone ROs, since those Delegates are not subject to influence costs?

[Nouvelle Tealand]

Which set of rules would you apply to Warzone ROs, since those Delegates are not subject to influence costs?

I would say that as Warzones have those special conditions they would apply to Warzones ROs also.

[Indian Empire]

Like the idea. Like we could check Embassies box and put in the nation of our Foreign Affairs minister.

[Zurkerx]

This is a good idea, especially for regions that go founder less and don't want to be bothered by raiders. I think though that there should be a limit on how many officers there should be. Perhaps the size of the region will depend on the numbers quite honestly until max is reached. The regional officers too should perhaps have equal or tad less power than what a WA Delegate has. Of course, the founder should have the right to revoke any decision made by the officer as well.

[Manchovia]

Sorry if this as been answered somewhere else, but is there any idea of the time-frame for Regional Officers being introduced? My region and I are really looking forward to it...

[Kringalia]

Sorry if this as been answered somewhere else, but is there any idea of the time-frame for Regional Officers being introduced? My region and I are really looking forward to it...

As always, they'll get added when they get added, and not a moment sooner. We have no hard or soft targets for the timing on any of these.

[Gradea]

Is this change going to be implememted anytime soon?

[Mousebumples]

As always, they'll get added when they get added, and not a moment sooner. We have no hard or soft targets for the timing on any of these.

[Galiantus II]

Sure, it's silly for a one-nation region to have 10 officers (all the same nation, in any case), but who does it hurt?

This brings up an interesting question: what happens when the delegate of a region leaves or CTE's, no one else is eligible to become the new delegate, and the RO's are the only ones left? Do they maintain power?

I personally see no reason to take away the RO's power, except by order of a delegate. Founderless regions without WA nations or delegates still need some kind of government, or they will slowly die. Since activity is only going to benefit NS, it is probably in everyone's best interest to just keep the position in existence after the fact.

I would also like to say that in regard to the spending of regional influence I think there should be two types of RO - WA created and Founder created. As the WA and presumably their motivations can change from time to time I propose that it costs them regional influence to create ministers, and in turn it costs those ministers some influence to perform roles, but not too much. Then, founder made ROs will require either no influence or very little influence to perform actions that do not cost the WA its regional influence (i.e. banjecting will still cost), as Founders do not change and have the best interests of their region at heart.

I think Founder-Created officer positions should be unalterable once a founder CTE's, but WA delegates should be allowed to add and edit their own. This would give regional governments their own distinct identities as a result of their founders, and regions where founders had unique ideas would be preserved for the good or bad of their region.

[Gest]

Will this change include some option to transfer foundership to another nation.

[United RussoAsia]

I didn't read the entire thread, but was ROs appointing ROs discussed?

How about ROs de-authorizing ROs?

ROs ejecting the delegate?

What happens when the delegate changes, do the ROs remain in place or do they automatically get reset?

My thoughts:
Founders, when founding a region, may chose for there to be non-exec ROs OR they may opt to bar having ROs appointed whatsoever.
The delegate or founder may chose to appoint ROs and give them each any number of powers from the list
[]Post Suppression
[]Nation Control(ejection/ban)
[]Embassy Control
[]WFE editing
[]RO Auth/De-Auth
Or they may chose to give them none.
ROs are assigned power individually so that one may have powers different from another.
ROs appointed by the WAD are de-authorised when the WAD is coup'd, ROs appointed by the founder are not.
ROs appointed by the WAD cannot eject/ban that person but ROs appointed by the founder can.
ROs that are not authorised to De-Auth other ROs also cannot eject/ban them.

Thoughts?
Missing anything?

This would be an exciting change and although it's been sitting here for some time I'd like to see it implemented.

[NOrTh pAcIfiC spY]

I didn't read the entire thread, but was ROs appointing ROs discussed?

How about ROs de-authorizing ROs?

ROs ejecting the delegate?

What happens when the delegate changes, do the ROs remain in place or do they automatically get reset?

My thoughts:
Founders, when founding a region, may chose for there to be non-exec ROs OR they may opt to bar having ROs appointed whatsoever.
The delegate or founder may chose to appoint ROs and give them each any number of powers from the list
[]Post Suppression
[]Nation Control(ejection/ban)
[]Embassy Control
[]WFE editing
[]RO Auth/De-Auth
Or they may chose to give them none.
ROs are assigned power individually so that one may have powers different from another.
ROs appointed by the WAD are de-authorised when the WAD is coup'd, ROs appointed by the founder are not.
ROs appointed by the WAD cannot eject/ban that person but ROs appointed by the founder can.
ROs that are not authorised to De-Auth other ROs also cannot eject/ban them.

Thoughts?
Missing anything?

This would be an exciting change and although it's been sitting here for some time I'd like to see it implemented.

Just finished the thread.

Apart from the conflict in powers between RO's, there was nothing related to RO's dealing with other RO's discussed in great depth.

RO's I think were able to eject the delegate at the beginning of the discussion, but then the thread moved onto whether RO's could eject or not.

Nothing has been set in stone, and the thread is more about suggestions and ideas, so go wild, don't worry about previous suggestions too much.

Personally, echoing someone earlier in the thread, RO's should remain in a WAD transfer, and if the founder CTE's they should remain, but executive RO's should be come non-executive.

With the list of powers, what about poll making, flag control, pinning dispatches, welcome TGs, recruiter settings and campaigns, embassy posting (although that would fit under embassy control), and controlling the region tags? And of course, the custom titles for each RO, mentioned a hundred times throughout the thread.

I'm not too sure whether RO's should be able to appoint or unappoint other RO's, it seems more founder and WAD territory. I don't think WAD's should be able to appoint executive (one's who can ban and eject other nations) RO's, because this seems to break into the Gameplay realm a little too much. If the founder CTE's, all executive RO's should become non-executive, so that there are not RO's with power that the WAD is able to give to others. If the WAD transfers hands, RO's should be able to remain, so the region doesn't fall apart after a delegate change. If the new delegate doesn't want the RO's, they can quickly dismiss them.

The Founder of a region should be able to choose (under the option to make the delegate executive or non-executive) whether the WAD can appoint, remove and edit RO's permissions, so that rogue WAD's can't grief in a non-executive delegacy, and non-executive WAD's can still have the ability to appoint, remove and edit RO's permissions.

I'm not sure about whether executive RO's should be able to kick the founder from a region, like an executive WAD can. I was initially against this, because a founder is meant to be higher than god, but given the founder can make the WAD executive, and allow them the power to kick them from the region, why shouldn't executive RO's (who would only be able to be appointed by the founder) be able to do the same, it could open a new avenue for GP - infiltrating a region and gaining executive RO. Then again, do we really want founders to be greater targets than they currently are?

Number of RO's, I don't see a reason for a limit, apart from the 'if everybody is super, then no one shall be' type scenario in smaller regions. This wouldn't be a bad thing though.

[Terraria 101]

Alright, would these regional officers have the ability to put password and ban/eject on TRR. Because it is basically a "lets try it out and see how it goes!" type mission.

[Sedgistan]

The intent is not, though I have no idea if Violet coded that correctly or not

Anyhow, with a thread in Technical now, I'm going to lock this and direct debate there: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=356700