NationStates

I think there should definitely be a cost for using regional controls, else the officers have too much power.

Mahaj wrote:I think there should definitely be a cost for using regional controls, else the officers have too much power.

A lot of times, the RO's are the ones charged with a duty that involves a curtain control; however, if they were charged influence, then they would not be able to perform their job well.

The North Polish Union wrote:

Cerian Quilor wrote:If raiders can't immediately remove ROs that have ban or ejection ability, then the raid is shot within hours.

True. Maybe after a Delegate change, all the ROs temporarily lose their powers. After a few updates they get them back and it would cost influence to remove them. Raids would still succeed, but the raiders would have to remove the ROs before they resumed their powers to have the raid succeed.

Unless its free to do so, or very low-cost in terms of influence, occupations would still be untenable.

Dragomere wrote:

Mahaj wrote:I think there should definitely be a cost for using regional controls, else the officers have too much power.

A lot of times, the RO's are the ones charged with a duty that involves a curtain control; however, if they were charged influence, then they would not be able to perform their job well.

How is that any different from a delegate?

Astarial wrote:

Dragomere wrote:A lot of times, the RO's are the ones charged with a duty that involves a curtain control; however, if they were charged influence, then they would not be able to perform their job well.

How is that any different from a delegate?

Delegates are not "In Charge" of a region per say, but rather representatives in the WA for their region. I do not know of many regions that have their delegate as the most powerful (or near that powerful) as other government officials.

Take the NWP for example, the delegate gets little to no executive power (except what is needed due to the current structure of the NS Regional Controls), The only real thing that the Delegate gets in the NWP is a "Delegate" mask, and to help other WA members in the region to create proposals. The NWP Delegate has no other power or authority.

Dragomere wrote:

Astarial wrote:
How is that any different from a delegate?

Delegates are not "In Charge" of a region per say, but rather representatives in the WA for their region. I do not know of many regions that have their delegate as the most powerful (or near that powerful) as other government officials.

Take the NWP for example, the delegate gets little to no executive power (except what is needed due to the current structure of the NS Regional Controls), The only real thing that the Delegate gets in the NWP is a "Delegate" mask, and to help other WA members in the region to create proposals. The NWP Delegate has no other power or authority.

And yet they still have exclusive access the regional controls. Whether or not they are technically in charge of the region, they are still the ones hitting the buttons and costing influence for that region, and it turns out fine. Unless RO's would spontaneously need to perform some other task that delegates haven't been performing as of yet, there's no reason to believe that costing influence would limit the RO's effectiveness.

The power of delegates vary from region to region, as does the power of founders.

I figure I should actually answer these...

What powers Regional Officers can be given?

I think the whole point should be that all powers bar voting for the region in the WA, should be available. I also think that it should cost 1.5x to 2x the influence for the officer to do what the delegate does. Although the power to password should probably remain with the delegate/founder.

The method for appointing and removing officers, including the length of time it takes to do so, and whether this costs influence.

I'm not sure how the calculation should work exactly but lets say it takes 48 hours to be 'sworn in'. The more power the officer gets, the more influence it should cost to put them into power. So let's say the delegate wants to give an officer the power to eject and ban a nation - the cost of this might be half the cost of ejecting and banning the nation with the median influence in that region. As for the 48 hour period, the influence would already have been spent when the delegate appoints an officer so if someone can interfere, they can remove that same officer with no influence cost. Removal of an officer outside of that 48 hour period costs a slightly lower amount than it otherwise took to appoint them.

Whether there is a limit on the number of officers that can have certain powers (such as to eject and ban).

Perhaps one-two others MAX can have the power to ban and the rest can be as many as necessarily?

Whether officers can access regional controls when the delegate's access is denied?

I think the option should be open to the founder to do both.

My Idea for Regional Government Permission Set:
([x] means has that power, [?] means can be given that power)
FOUNDER
[x] Edit World Factbook Entry
[x] Set Regional Password
[x] Open/Close Embassies
[x] Edit Regional Flag
[x] Ban Nations
[x] Eject Nations
[x] Set Welcome Telegram
[x] Set Recruitment Telegram
[x] Send Region-Wide Telegram
[x] Set RO's Permission Set
[x] Assign RO's
DELEGATE
[?] Edit World Factbook Entry
[?] Set Regional Password
[?] Open/Close Embassies
[?] Edit Regional Flag
[_] Ban Nations
[_] Eject Nations
[?] Set Welcome Telegram
[?] Set Recruitment Telegram
[x] Send Region-Wide Telegram
[?] Set RO's Permission Set
[?] Assign RO's
REGIONAL OFFICER
[?] Edit World Factbook Entry
[?] Set Regional Password
[?] Open/Close Embassies
[?] Edit Regional Flag
[?] Ban Nations
[?] Eject Nations
[?] Set Welcome Telegram
[?] Set Recruitment Telegram
[?] Send Region-Wide Telegram
[_] Set RO's Permission Set
[?] Assign RO's

This is a balanced plan. I will now endorse the idea of using influence; however, the cost for RO's should be less than that of Delegates.

No it shouldn't. And I find it highly implausible that any plan which completely disallows delegates from ever banning or ejecting will be considered viable by the admin team.

The Founder has all available powers, unless they opt to be non-executive. The Delegate has all Founderial powers if there is no Founder or the Founder is non-executive, and I would support the Founder being able to choose which regional powers to turn on and off for their delegate on a case-by-case basis. Officers should be able to be given any and all powers except the ability to create more Officers or to vote in the RA, and possibly to eject or ban (giving them this power would greatly impede raiders' ability to hold a region - dear raiders following along, would it be better if they could eject and ban but not touch the delegate?).

RO actions should cost at least as much as the delegate's actions in terms of influence, and I'm with Kiwi on 1.5-2.0x more.

Astarial wrote:No it shouldn't. And I find it highly implausible that any plan which completely disallows delegates from ever banning or ejecting will be considered viable by the admin team.

The Founder has all available powers, unless they opt to be non-executive. The Delegate has all Founderial powers if there is no Founder or the Founder is non-executive, and I would support the Founder being able to choose which regional powers to turn on and off for their delegate on a case-by-case basis. Officers should be able to be given any and all powers except the ability to create more Officers or to vote in the RA, and possibly to eject or ban (giving them this power would greatly impede raiders' ability to hold a region - dear raiders following along, would it be better if they could eject and ban but not touch the delegate?).

RO actions should cost at least as much as the delegate's actions in terms of influence, and I'm with Kiwi on 1.5-2.0x more.

Exactly! Couldn't agree more. Yeah I hadn't considered the implications of ejecting/banning a delegate. While a founder can be ejected and banned - they can physically remove themselves from the list. (At least how I understand it) A delegate isn't in the same position so I guess the answer would be to make ROs unable to target the delegate for banning/ejection. That won't stop the RO from being able to ban other raiders who come in to endorse the raider lead (or defender depending on your standpoint). It's probably a good idea also that if an RO is banned / ejected their RO status lapses. I don't think they should have quasi-founder powers they can use outside the region. You need to have a clear hierarchy and have clear benefits to being the delegate of a region.

That's a good starting point anyway. The game can always be tweaked.

My Idea for Regional Government Permission Set:
([x] means has that power, [?] means can be given that power)
FOUNDER
[x] Edit World Factbook Entry
[x] Set Regional Password
[x] Open/Close Embassies
[x] Edit Regional Flag
[x] Ban Nations
[x] Eject Nations
[x] Set Welcome Telegram
[x] Set Recruitment Telegram
[x] Send Region-Wide Telegram
[x] Set RO's Permission Set
[x] Assign RO's
DELEGATE
[?] Edit World Factbook Entry
[?] Set Regional Password
[?] Open/Close Embassies
[?] Edit Regional Flag
[?] Ban Nations (defaults to this if there is no founder)
[?] Eject Nations (defaults to this if there is no founder)
[?] Set Welcome Telegram
[?] Set Recruitment Telegram
[x] Send Region-Wide Telegram
[?] Set RO's Permission Set (defaults to this if there is no founder)
[?] Assign RO's
REGIONAL OFFICER
[?] Edit World Factbook Entry
[?] Set Regional Password
[?] Open/Close Embassies
[?] Edit Regional Flag
[?] Ban Nations
[?] Eject Nations
[?] Set Welcome Telegram
[?] Set Recruitment Telegram
[?] Send Region-Wide Telegram
[_] Set RO's Permission Set
[?] Assign RO's

This is a balanced plan. I will now endorse the idea of using influence; however, the cost for RO's should be less than that of Delegates.

I added some parts.

Also, It is my belief that the RO's should have more power than the Delegate in most cases. The Delegate would have founder's powers if there was no founder in that region. I shall emphasis, that since the RO's usually have higher authority in most regions, then they should have to "spend" less influence than the Delegate does on the same things.

If a nation leaves a region or is ejected from a region that they are RO of, then their "special" status should be revoked.

Dragomere wrote:Also, It is my belief that the RO's should have more power than the Delegate in most cases. The Delegate would have founder's powers if there was no founder in that region. I shall emphasis, that since the RO's usually have higher authority in most regions, then they should have to "spend" less influence than the Delegate does on the same things.

I'm not sure where you're getting that statistic from - in the vast majority of regions I'm familiar with, the Delegate outranks all regional officers. This certainly isn't always the case, and foundered regions with disempowered delegates will likely make use of the non-executive function, but you'll want to provide actual data if you're asserting that non-existent in-game positions are, across the board, more powerful in regional governments than existing ones.

Astarial wrote:

Dragomere wrote:Also, It is my belief that the RO's should have more power than the Delegate in most cases. The Delegate would have founder's powers if there was no founder in that region. I shall emphasis, that since the RO's usually have higher authority in most regions, then they should have to "spend" less influence than the Delegate does on the same things.

I'm not sure where you're getting that statistic from - in the vast majority of regions I'm familiar with, the Delegate outranks all regional officers. This certainly isn't always the case, and foundered regions with disempowered delegates will likely make use of the non-executive function, but you'll want to provide actual data if you're asserting that non-existent in-game positions are, across the board, more powerful in regional governments than existing ones.

One such example is the NWP. The only reason the delegate can do executive functions, would be because RO's in NS side do not exist yet.

Dragomere wrote:My Idea for Regional Government Permission Set:
([x] means has that power, [?] means can be given that power)

Before you start jamming this thread with all the possible combinations of regional abilities, I should tell you that we're probably looking at a user-selectable menu of powers, so that regions can have custom-designed ROs. It's possible that some regions would want to give all their power to a President or Chancellor, while others might want to separate responsibilities so that a dozen or more people had different jobs. The same may be true for costs of actions, such as requiring certain influence levels and/or costs, or restricting an RO to a specific government type or tax rate.

We're aiming for flexibility, and letting regions decide for themselves. The devil is in the details of what we should allow.

My two cents: Regional Officers, if granted the ability, should only be able to eject, but not ban. Only Founders and Delegates should have that power, its what makes them desirable and unique. If a RO wants to ban, he/she should become Delegate. Also RO's should be effected by influence, especially if we are going to potentially allow them to be appointed by Delegates, who themselves are subject to influence. RO's should also not have the ability to institute a password, remove a password, or see the password. Again, Founder and Delegate's special rights. Other than that, they should have the ability to be gifted all other powers the Delegate has.

Oh, and removing an RO shouldn't use up influence. That would be like making the act of unbanning nations something you need to use influence for.

Dragomere wrote:One such example is the NWP. The only reason the delegate can do executive functions, would be because RO's in NS side do not exist yet.

That's 1 example. In all GCR's, the Delegate has by far the most power. In most UCRs I've seen, the delegate has substantial power, generally more than other officers. Certainly in the majority of large regions.

The Black Hat Guy wrote:

Dragomere wrote:One such example is the NWP. The only reason the delegate can do executive functions, would be because RO's in NS side do not exist yet.

That's 1 example. In all GCR's, the Delegate has by far the most power. In most UCRs I've seen, the delegate has substantial power, generally more than other officers. Certainly in the majority of large regions.

In all of the regions that I had encountered, the delegate had very little authority.

Dragomere wrote:

The Black Hat Guy wrote:
That's 1 example. In all GCR's, the Delegate has by far the most power. In most UCRs I've seen, the delegate has substantial power, generally more than other officers. Certainly in the majority of large regions.

In all of the regions that I had encountered, the delegate had very little authority.

Indeed, that is what I have seen in the UCR's S well. The delegate having little to do other then voting in WA proposals.

Leutria wrote:

Dragomere wrote:In all of the regions that I had encountered, the delegate had very little authority.

Indeed, that is what I have seen in the UCR's S well. The delegate having little to do other then voting in WA proposals.

Yes. If some regions want to give their Delegates governmental authority, then they should be able to; however, they should not try to force their government systems onto regions that work quite differently.

Sorry if this has been answered before, but roughly when can we expect regional officers to become implemented?

None of these features have hard (or for that matter, soft) timelines. If the admins are satisfied by the general consensus of the discussion, the one doing the coding will usually post something about timelines.

Founders should also gain the ability to add or take powers from the WAD the way they can for ROs.

So, if ROs have the power to eject (which I hope they don't) do they lose it if they leave the region? Or would they lose it at update? I suppose this goes for any power, but I'm mainly concerned with the power to eject because that is the one that will be the most damaging.

Dragomere wrote:

Leutria wrote:Indeed, that is what I have seen in the UCR's S well. The delegate having little to do other then voting in WA proposals.

Yes. If some regions want to give their Delegates governmental authority, then they should be able to; however, they should not try to force their government systems onto regions that work quite differently.

Then don't shove your government systems (or lack thereof) down our throats. The Delegate system is fine as it is; you don't want the Delegate having power in your region? Fine, remove executive controls. Problem solved.

ROs are, in my opinion, inferior by default as they are appointed while Delegates are elected, and while there can only be one WAD, there can be multiple ROs (Mods- will there be a limit on the amount?). I would suggest the influence costs for ROs should be 1.25-1.5x as much as the Delegate's, so as not to give them too much power whilst not rendering them completely worthless.

Then the WA would basically be powerless unless you are planning on adding some different options. But I can't think of what they would be.