[Change #3] Regional Officers

[Nephmir]

Founders should have the right to block anyone they wish from getting access to the administrative panel. Plus, if the officers cannot have powers because the delegate can't, then no Gameplay region would want to have officers. There'd be no point.

[Nephmir]

To clarify, that would mean that I'd say no. Founders should be able to block delegate powers to prevent easy raids but still grant power to trusted members as officers.

[Darwinish Brentsylvania]

Founders should have the right to block anyone they wish from getting access to the administrative panel. Plus, if the officers cannot have powers because the delegate can't, then no Gameplay region would want to have officers. There'd be no point.

Maybe, but maybe the delegate doesn't have powers in a region (except for voting in the WA), but a prime minister or president does.

[Nephmir]

Founders should have the right to block anyone they wish from getting access to the administrative panel. Plus, if the officers cannot have powers because the delegate can't, then no Gameplay region would want to have officers. There'd be no point.

Maybe, but maybe the delegate doesn't have powers in a region (except for voting in the WA), but a prime minister or president does.

That's what I'm saying.

[Nephmir]

Wouldn't this mean that officers could be appointed in occupied regions to allow super defenses during updates? This directly goes against the efforts of delegate elect.

[Dragomere]

Wouldn't this mean that officers could be appointed in occupied regions to allow super defenses during updates? This directly goes against the efforts of delegate elect.

I do get your point; however, in most regions, I can guarantee that the delegate has little to no power.

For example, the New Warsaw Pact has an executive delegate; however, the only powers Damanucus (our delegate) have pertain exclusively to the WA. The only reason for keeping the delegate as executive is to do the functions that are mandated by the regional government, due to the fact that ROs do not exist In-Game yet.

[Nephmir]

Wouldn't this mean that officers could be appointed in occupied regions to allow super defenses during updates? This directly goes against the efforts of delegate elect.

I do get your point; however, in most regions, I can guarantee that the delegate has little to no power.

For example, the New Warsaw Pact has an executive delegate; however, the only powers Damanucus (our delegate) have pertain exclusively to the WA. The only reason for keeping the delegate as executive is to do the functions that are mandated by the regional government, due to the fact that ROs do not exist In-Game yet.

Okay, allow me to clarify, then. I was rushed earlier, so my apologies.

A few (months? weeks?) ago, the admins added a "feature" that automatically signs people out of a nation if more that one person logs into it. This was because people were abusing this, and using one delegate nation to eject and ban nations during the update that were trying to liberate the region with superhuman speed. This was classified as "cheating".

However, with the addition of the regional officers, a delegate of an occupied region could assign officers to help defend the region during updates with incredible speed; this would mean that liberations (or raids) would be virtually impossible on that region without a huge, overwhelming amount of forces.

The goal of delegate elect, however, is running directly against this:

This change would see a new delegate in certain circumstances be a "Delegate Elect" with limited access to regional controls. This would occur during larger delegate changes - when the new delegate has at least x endorsements, and when the gap between the old and new delegates is close - so either y endorsements or y percentage. The new delegate would not be able to eject or ban nations, and other access to regional controls may be limited. Delegate Elect would be possible in all regions, so both player-created ones and game-created ones.

The intention of this change is to:
•Increase participation in raiding/defending by allowing those not online at update to be involved.
•Prevent a successful invasion or liberation being a "game over" scenario in significant regions.
•Apply only to "significant" invasions or delegate changes, rather than every.
•Limit interference with non-raider/defender instigated delegate changes.
•Not invalidate certain styles of raiding, such as tag-raiding.

A delegate combined with Regional Officers with the ability to ban and eject nations would be a game over. End of story. No force or alliance in NS is strong enough to override this to even think about triggering delegate elect.

To make matters worse, the delegate wouldn't have to spend influence to eject and ban nations; the officers could do that while the delegate can get influence to password protect and force a refound (in most cases).

Possible solutions:
(1) Making a regional officer requires at least half of the regional influence, or more.
(2) Only one RO can have access to certain features at a time, like ejecting and banning.
Or
(3) Regional Officers require large amounts of influence when there is no founder present in the region.

Of course, this also brings up the idea of "influence trading", meaning that ROs can only gain extra influence from the residents of a region (or just the founder and delegate) giving influence to them. This would allow influence to be transferred freely amongst those with access to the regional controls- meaning that all executive members could trade influence with each other just like trading endorsements.

---

This would also run against a goal of the regional update times displayed feature:

This change would see an estimated next update time displayed on each region's page. However, this time would only be an estimate, and there would be a "window of uncertainty" for the exact update time of the region.

The intention of this change is to:
•Reduce the barriers to involvement in raiding/defending by making information on update times publicly available to all.
•Have the estimated update time displayed on regions be the most accurate information a player can obtain on a region's possible update time, negating the need for other tools.
•Prevent split-second timing from being an absolute necessity for success.

If there is one delegate and 3 active ROs in a region to defend it, not only would an even larger force be needed, but split second timing would be essential.

Edit: minor grammar error.

[Bears Armed]

However, with the addition of the regional officers, a delegate of an occupied region could assign officers to help defend the region during updates with incredible speed; this would mean that liberations (or raids) would be virtually impossible on that region without a huge, overwhelming amount of forces.

The goal of delegate elect, however, is running directly against this:

This change would see a new delegate in certain circumstances be a "Delegate Elect" with limited access to regional controls. This would occur during larger delegate changes - when the new delegate has at least x endorsements, and when the gap between the old and new delegates is close - so either y endorsements or y percentage. The new delegate would not be able to eject or ban nations, and other access to regional controls may be limited. Delegate Elect would be possible in all regions, so both player-created ones and game-created ones.

The intention of this change is to:
•Increase participation in raiding/defending by allowing those not online at update to be involved.
•Prevent a successful invasion or liberation being a "game over" scenario in significant regions.
•Apply only to "significant" invasions or delegate changes, rather than every.
•Limit interference with non-raider/defender instigated delegate changes.
•Not invalidate certain styles of raiding, such as tag-raiding.

A delegate combined with Regional Officers with the ability to ban and eject nations would be a game over. End of story. No force or alliance in NS is strong enough to override this to even think about triggering delegate elect.

Presumably only a "full" Delegate, rather than a 'Delegate Elect', would be able to appoint Regional Officers?

[Evil Wolf]

I don't see why, if of course, the Regional Officers are limited to non-eject/ban actions in the Regional Controls.

As it is, we've been talking about Regional Officers for nearly a year now and we have effectively no definitive input at all from either the MOD or ADMIN about what sort of powers the Regional Officer should have. Are they still deciding, which would be a bit silly since we've only had a years worth of talking about the damn thing, or are they simply not telling? Rather annoying, from a player's perspective.

[All Good People]

True, there really is no incentive for players to give more input when what they've given hasn't been addressed as it is.

[Darwinish Brentsylvania]

I wish that they would be able to have all the controls founders and delegates have. Or, maybe, there can be certain types of regional officers. Say that someone is a Minister of Foreign Affairs, you can make them a MoFA-Like Regional Officer, giving them control of welcome TGs, embassies, etc.

[Nephmir]

I don't see why, if of course, the Regional Officers are limited to non-eject/ban actions in the Regional Controls.

As it is, we've been talking about Regional Officers for nearly a year now and we have effectively no definitive input at all from either the MOD or ADMIN about what sort of powers the Regional Officer should have. Are they still deciding, which would be a bit silly since we've only had a years worth of talking about the damn thing, or are they simply not telling? Rather annoying, from a player's perspective.

I'm beginning to think that the entire point behind these threads is for them to just get ideas. They implement them however they want, so in the end almost all of this discussion does not matter. So yes, annoying, seeing how it's been over a year. <_< But I understand how time consuming it can be.

Also, this was said in the sticky:

As has been said previously, these changes are still on the to-do list, with the exception of Reformation, which is on hold. Coding work has started on some (I understand that is displaying update times, and regional officers), others not yet. Discussion on all the changes is still welcome and encouraged, and can still impact on how they are implemented.

As Mall has said, changes take time to implement. Admins have limited time, and also have other NS matters they need to deal with at the same time.

[Frisbeeteria]

I'm beginning to think that the entire point behind these threads is for them to just get ideas.

Of course the point is to get ideas. [violet] wants to use the player base to identify as many "unforeseen consequences" as possible in advance.

They implement them however they want, so in the end almost all of this discussion does not matter.

What matters is how the discussion points out potential problems. Not every discussion post raises something useful, but reading the overall thread helps identify areas that need work. The coding needs to be built so that it preserves game balance, and a single player's representation is rarely a balanced view.

So if you're saying "Regional Officers should include this, that, and the other," then no, staff will pick and choose what they want rather than saying "oh yeah, let's use the Nephmir plan!" The likely outcome will be some things you'll like, and some things you won't. I've heard [violet] discussing that she's not currently happy with the RO coding, and it will be tackled when time permits. That's really all we can do.

[Evil Wolf]

I've heard [violet] discussing that she's not currently happy with the RO coding, and it will be tackled when time permits. That's really all we can do.

Well, that kinda sounds like an update. Thanks, I think?

[Nephmir]

Fair enough.

[Darwinish Brentsylvania]

I wish that they would be able to have all the controls founders and delegates have. Or, maybe, there can be certain types of regional officers. Say that someone is a Minister of Foreign Affairs, you can make them a MoFA-Like Regional Officer, giving them control of welcome TGs, embassies, etc.

Any additions to this?

[Goddess Relief Office]

This change is still in the early stages of being worked out; however, for this thread the following aspects in particular need further discussion:

1. What powers Regional Officers can be given.
2. The method for appointing and removing officers, including the length of time it takes to do so, and whether this costs influence.
3. Whether the influence cost for officers using regional controls is the same as for delegates or different.
4. Whether there is a limit on the number of officers that can have certain powers (such as to eject and ban).
5. Whether officers can access regional controls when the delegate's access is denied.

1. Speaking as a founder of Yggdrasil and Valhalla it would definitely be cool to have some regional officers help with things that would make the region more lively and enjoyable for everyone. Some powers should be reserved for the Founder and Delegate, it makes sense that Regional Officers should have less powers as their assistants.

What I'm thinking is:

- Regional Officers: Pin Dispatches, Create Polls, Suppress posts + Eject (Maybe)
- Founder and Delegate (if controls are on): All the above powers + Eject/Ban, Exchange embassies, Update WFE and Flags, Set password
- Founder only: All the above + Whether to allow regional controls to Delegate + Whether to select Regional Officers

2. Should be appointed by Founder and Delegate (Regional controls on). If Delegate controls are off, ROs should be appointed by Founders only. It should not cost influence for Founders, but it should cost influence for Delegates to appoint ROs. (Why not have them use their influence, since Delegates accrue them by being endorsed?)

3. Should be the same. Minor work such as making polls or pinning dispatches should not take too much influence.

4. Yes, 2 per region sounds about right.

5. Yes. ROs should be able to access controls if they are appointed. If the Founder doesn't want them to access controls, just don't appoint any ROs.


~GRO~

[Morrdh]

This change is still in the early stages of being worked out; however, for this thread the following aspects in particular need further discussion:

1. What powers Regional Officers can be given.
2. The method for appointing and removing officers, including the length of time it takes to do so, and whether this costs influence.
3. Whether the influence cost for officers using regional controls is the same as for delegates or different.
4. Whether there is a limit on the number of officers that can have certain powers (such as to eject and ban).
5. Whether officers can access regional controls when the delegate's access is denied.

1. Speaking as a founder of Yggdrasil and Valhalla it would definitely be cool to have some regional officers help with things that would make the region more lively and enjoyable for everyone. Some powers should be reserved for the Founder and Delegate, it makes sense that Regional Officers should have less powers as their assistants.

What I'm thinking is:

- Regional Officers: Pin Dispatches, Create Polls, Suppress posts + Eject (Maybe)
- Founder and Delegate (if controls are on): All the above powers + Eject/Ban, Exchange embassies, Update WFE and Flags, Set password
- Founder only: All the above + Whether to allow regional controls to Delegate + Whether to select Regional Officers

2. Should be appointed by Founder and Delegate (Regional controls on). If Delegate controls are off, ROs should be appointed by Founders only. It should not cost influence for Founders, but it should cost influence for Delegates to appoint ROs. (Why not have them use their influence, since Delegates accrue them by being endorsed?)

3. Should be the same. Minor work such as making polls or pinning dispatches should not take too much influence.

4. Yes, 2 per region sounds about right.

5. Yes. ROs should be able to access controls if they are appointed. If the Founder doesn't want them to access controls, just don't appoint any ROs.


~GRO~

Personally I would let ROs update the WFE, it's the most common task of our Delegate and having more than one person do it would help a great deal.

[Shadow Afforess]

I'm beginning to think that the entire point behind these threads is for them to just get ideas.

Of course the point is to get ideas. [violet] wants to use the player base to identify as many "unforeseen consequences" as possible in advance.

This is more of a general criticism of the entire summit, rather than a focused critique of RO, but these discussions will not "identify" unforeseen consequences. By their very definition, unforeseen consequences can not be "foreseen". Assembling a committee to discuss the issue, without any experience with the topic at hand, is a massive waste of everyones' time. In fact, the very nature of this committee discussion ensures that absolutely no conclusions can be drawn, as there are far too many opinions and zero consensus. Worse yet, everyone (who is not on the staff) who has expressed an opinion so far is not even wrong, simply because they are trying to guess at a feature they have never used.

So not only is the goal here unattainable, the committee doomed to pointless bickering, but the discussion so far is not useful, in that no one can be have valid opinions.

It is my opinion that this entire subforum should not exist. Features should simply have been rolled out without discussion, and then allowed a later post-reveal forum for comments, at least one month after their release. The userbase is a useful tool, but only if used correctly. Idea gathering is a great way to encourage participation, but this is not idea gathering. Instead of an excited userbase interested in suggesting improvements, everyone here will walk away discouraged about the future of NationStates. No one wins, the admins are raked over the coals for nebulous "features" that no one fully understands, because they haven't been released yet, users all feel their concerns are ignored, and everyone wastes their time.

[Nephmir]

If our opinions on what is to be implemented do not matter, then what is the point in this entire subforum? The entire point in unforeseen consequences is that they are unforeseen. Discussion over how it should be implemented won't shed light on the consequences in the slightest. If you want "the following points to be discussed", but do not intend to enact on anything discussed, then how do you expect anything to get accomplished here? Discussing "What powers Regional Officers can be given" won't yield any results in finding unforeseen consequences.

I've run a few organizations of varying sizes before, and I've found that the best way to implement a new policy is to first create the policy, implement a basic version of it, and then begin the discussion and add on from there, similar to what [violet] did when the regional polls were implemented. By adding and fixing as you go along, you can perfect the system better then implementing it all at once while trying to see all the unforeseen consequences ahead of time. Plus, if the basic version backfires in any way, you can just remove it before it becomes a major problem, no harm done.

[Sedgistan]

If you're not interested in discussing the points as laid out in the first post, please refrain from posting. Any further attempts at threadjacking will result in the removal of posts and be accompanied by warnings.

[Tatarica]

Greetings fair members,

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.

The point is to use the size of the region when considering Officers ; a larger region can use more officers, a smaller region not so much, other than RP'ing purposes. ( other than RP, less than 5 nations in a region would probably not need 1 founder + 1 delegate + 1 officer).

Some of the questions raised by Nephir and others are also pretty valid to me: when it comes to the RP game, then having Officers is an AWESOME addition! But, when it comes to the R/D game, the delegate + officers combo means huge problems, especially when you consider a significant force camping in a conquered region and cross-swapping endorsements between themselves, switching between officers as their influence get more depleted.

[District XIV]

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.

Such a policy would be detrimental to the growth of small regions; say, for example, I wanted to grow my region so I would appoint a regional officer to handle some of the tasks that one would usually encounter when growing a region... but I wouldn't be able to appoint any officers under your system until my region went up to 'medium' or higher. It would be unfairly tilted towards larger regions and smaller, growing ones would get the finger.

[Tatarica]

I understand where you are going with that, but I view such a policy exactly in tune with the ratio of nations in a region, obviously with some tweaking. A region with 5 nations shouldn't be composed of 3 Officers, 1 Founder and one Delegate. A region with 20 nations can have 3 Officers.

I view having Officers as a "milestone" you get to, and not as a prerequisite in order to have a region act in a way. That is why, in order to still be fair, the minimum number of Officers should be 1, even for the small regions. And if you get more nations then you should have more Officer spots opened, as it takes more people to manage a larger region.

Obviously, if we are talking about Regional Officers that have Regional Powers. If we are talking about people titled "Officers", you can do that in the W.F.E. of the region and name whomever you want , just like people did in all these past years.

[Rhina]

Perhaps there could be one officer per 10/20/blah nations in a region. That way there'd still be milestones, just not as far apart... and a lot more of them.

Maybe it could be exponential, so you don't have hundreds of officers in a massive region like the feeders. So the first officer comes at ten nations, the next at 30, then 60, then 100, then 150, etc. Of course the question that needs to be answered now is, what happens if a region falls under a population threshold?