[Change #3] Regional Officers

[Dragomere]

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.

If anything, the maximum amount of influence that a RO would have to use would be .5x(influence that the WA Delegate would use in that situation).

[Bodobol]

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.

If anything, the maximum amount of influence that a RO would have to use would be .5x(influence that the WA Delegate would use in that situation).

.5x? That would give the ROs more power than the Delegate, and that's not the aim of this change at all. I'm sticking with my previous suggestion of 1.25-1.5x.

[The Seafield Islands]

This is interesting. When will this be implemented?

[Frisbeeteria]

This is interesting. When will this be 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.

[The Seafield Islands]

Oh okay... I have an idea... Vice Delegates! The nations with the second largest number of endorsements. They will have less power than the delegate though, but they will have full power when the delegate is out of the region, even before an update.

I also wish we could appoint "new founders" this'll be useful for regions who have CTE'd founders so raiders won't have a chance to raid those regions without a founder. There can be an exception for feeder and sinker regions.

[Evil Wolf]

I also wish we could appoint "new founders" this'll be useful for regions who have CTE'd founders so raiders won't have a chance to raid those regions without a founder. There can be an exception for feeder and sinker regions.

As much as I personally appreciate your desire to stick it to them evil raiders, I actually enjoy the Gameplay side of Nationsides and would like to see it not killed off entirely.

[Astarial]

I'm sticking with my previous suggestion of 1.25-1.5x.

I support 1.5x influence cost for RO actions as compared to delegate actions.

Oh okay... I have an idea... Vice Delegates! The nations with the second largest number of endorsements. They will have less power than the delegate though, but they will have full power when the delegate is out of the region, even before an update.

...Do delegates frequently voluntarily leave their region randomly?

I don't think this makes sense overall - not all regions have or want a vice delegate. Those which do can simply make their VD an RO.

[The Black Hat Guy]

I support 1.5x cost for RO actions. Combine that with the fact that RO's will tend to have less influence that delegates, and you've got a position that's effective but still manageable.

Also, I don't see the need for a Vice Delegate when this is implemented. Regions can have that as a de facto position if they'd like, but it seems rather pointless to me.

[Bodobol]

I also wish we could appoint "new founders" this'll be useful for regions who have CTE'd founders so raiders won't have a chance to raid those regions without a founder. There can be an exception for feeder and sinker regions.

As much as I personally appreciate your desire to stick it to them evil raiders, I actually enjoy the Gameplay side of Nationsides and would like to see it not killed off entirely.

As someone who's primarily a defender, I agree with this.

[Dragomere]

I now support RO's spending the exact same amount of influence as delegates, as that is the only thing that would make sense. All a WA Delegate is, is a RO that represents the region in the WA.

[Evil Wolf]

Except a delegate is elected and a RO is appointed. Why should they be on the same footing with the same rights and abilities when one is harder to achieve and more exclusive than the other?

[Dragomere]

Except a delegate is elected and a RO is appointed. Why should they be on the same footing with the same rights and abilities when one is harder to achieve and more exclusive than the other?

A RO is elected, just not in the same way.

[Evil Wolf]

This change would allow a founder or delegate to appoint "Regional Officers" with access to regional controls.

No, they are appointed, as Sedge points out in the quote above.

[Dragomere]

This change would allow a founder or delegate to appoint "Regional Officers" with access to regional controls.

No, they are appointed, as Sedge points out in the quote above.

No, in most regions the positions are elected. We are talking about government positions. the only regions that do not elect their RO's are those that are monarchies or dictatorships. Most regions democratically elect their RO's

[Leutria]

Game mechanics wise the ROs are appointed by the WAD. If there is some agreed upon election process in the region for them is irrelevant, as far as the game is concerned they are appointed by the delegate.

[Dragomere]

Game mechanics wise the ROs are appointed by the WAD. If there is some agreed upon election process in the region for them is irrelevant, as far as the game is concerned they are appointed by the delegate.

Actually they are not appointed by the WAD as they are not a part of the game functions. Actually, it could be possible to program in a election process.

[Frisbeeteria]

This change would allow a founder or delegate to appoint "Regional Officers" with access to regional controls.

No, they are appointed, as Sedge points out in the quote above.

For what it's worth, we're exploring a regional voting mechanism that's unrelated to WA activity. It might not be possible to prevent puppet abuse, but we're not necessarily closing the door on the possibility just yet. This is all hypothetical, and began after Sedge posted this thread, so take it with a grain of salt.

In the mean time, Dragomere would do well to avoid stating things as fact when they're actually very much still under discussion.

[Dragomere]

No, they are appointed, as Sedge points out in the quote above.

For what it's worth, we're exploring a regional voting mechanism that's unrelated to WA activity. It might not be possible to prevent puppet abuse, but we're not necessarily closing the door on the possibility just yet. This is all hypothetical, and began after Sedge posted this thread, so take it with a grain of salt.

In the mean time, Dragomere would do well to avoid stating things as fact when they're actually very much still under discussion.

Ok, I will keep that in mind.

[The Black Hat Guy]

Actually they are not appointed by the WAD as they are not a part of the game functions.

I can't make heads or tails out of this sentence. The only logical meaning I can deduce from it is that you are claiming that they are not appointed by the WAD because they haven't been implemented yet, but that's rather irrelevant to the conversation, as we're talking about ideas for their implementation. Regardless, they are appointees of the WAD under the current change rubric, and to give them equal power to the WAD (who appointed them) is rather pointless. They should have less power, because they derive their power from the WAD. Many regions (including mine) will elect them, and assign them accordingly, but game mechanics are separate from regional politics. Because RO's technically derive their power from the WAD, it doesn't make sense for them to have equal power.

Besides, so long as I'm not misunderstanding the R/D game in some drastic way, if they had equal power to the WAD, the game would change drastically. It would become far easier for raiders to hold a region, because they would be able to eject natives and defenders with virtually no cost in influence, because they would have so many effective co-delegates at their side. Of course, that depends on how much influence it takes to assign RO's in the first place, but unless the RO loses influence upon gaining the office, the instant one is assigned he's just made up for all the lost influence by having so much influence to use himself. Some active R/D players can correct me if I'm wrong, but such a system doesn't seem tenable.

Actually, it could be possible to program in a election process.

If such an election process was actually implemented as an in-game mechanic that elected the ROs, that, I'm nigh 100% sure, would completely overturn the R/D game. All they'd have to do would be move in during an election, vote for their candidate, and poof, instant winner. They wouldn't even have to have WA nations. Definitely not tenable.

[Dragomere]

Actually they are not appointed by the WAD as they are not a part of the game functions.

I can't make heads or tails out of this sentence. The only logical meaning I can deduce from it is that you are claiming that they are not appointed by the WAD because they haven't been implemented yet, but that's rather irrelevant to the conversation, as we're talking about ideas for their implementation. Regardless, they are appointees of the WAD under the current change rubric, and to give them equal power to the WAD (who appointed them) is rather pointless. They should have less power, because they derive their power from the WAD. Many regions (including mine) will elect them, and assign them accordingly, but game mechanics are separate from regional politics. Because RO's technically derive their power from the WAD, it doesn't make sense for them to have equal power.

Besides, so long as I'm not misunderstanding the R/D game in some drastic way, if they had equal power to the WAD, the game would change drastically. It would become far easier for raiders to hold a region, because they would be able to eject natives and defenders with virtually no cost in influence, because they would have so many effective co-delegates at their side. Of course, that depends on how much influence it takes to assign RO's in the first place, but unless the RO loses influence upon gaining the office, the instant one is assigned he's just made up for all the lost influence by having so much influence to use himself. Some active R/D players can correct me if I'm wrong, but such a system doesn't seem tenable.

Actually, it could be possible to program in a election process.

If such an election process was actually implemented as an in-game mechanic that elected the ROs, that, I'm nigh 100% sure, would completely overturn the R/D game. All they'd have to do would be move in during an election, vote for their candidate, and poof, instant winner. They wouldn't even have to have WA nations. Definitely not tenable.

It would have upsides and downsides. It is my belief that it would be the best option (the one I mentioned earlier).

[The Black Hat Guy]

It would have upsides and downsides. It is my belief that it would be the best option (the one I mentioned earlier).

The goal of this conference is not to destroy the R/D game, it is to make it better. Your one liner response to my points outlining serious concerns with your option does nothing to further the conversation.

[Astarial]

I am largely in agreement with TBHG.

Regardless, they are appointees of the WAD under the current change rubric, and to give them equal power to the WAD (who appointed them) is rather pointless. They should have less power, because they derive their power from the WAD. Many regions (including mine) will elect them, and assign them accordingly, but game mechanics are separate from regional politics. Because RO's technically derive their power from the WAD, it doesn't make sense for them to have equal power.

Definitely - although I assume they can also be appointed by the founder, whose power outstrips that of the WAD, the delegate holds a unique and privileged place in game mechanics and their power relative to other regional officers ought to reflect that.

Moreover, Dragomere's argument that only authoritarian regions name their officers by appointment instead of election, and that elections are therefore the norm, is irrelevant - game mechanics don't care about the metagame political functions established by region members. It is also an unsubstantiated claim, one which can easily be questioned. Simply look at TNP, which has an abundance of democracy but allows its elected delegates to exert total discretion over their appointed ministers and other officers. Different regions have different setups, and claiming one particular approach is predominant is premature without an examination of a large number of regions.

Besides, so long as I'm not misunderstanding the R/D game in some drastic way, if they had equal power to the WAD, the game would change drastically. It would become far easier for raiders to hold a region, because they would be able to eject natives and defenders with virtually no cost in influence, because they would have so many effective co-delegates at their side. Of course, that depends on how much influence it takes to assign RO's in the first place, but unless the RO loses influence upon gaining the office, the instant one is assigned he's just made up for all the lost influence by having so much influence to use himself. Some active R/D players can correct me if I'm wrong, but such a system doesn't seem tenable.

If such an election process was actually implemented as an in-game mechanic that elected the ROs, that, I'm nigh 100% sure, would completely overturn the R/D game. All they'd have to do would be move in during an election, vote for their candidate, and poof, instant winner. They wouldn't even have to have WA nations. Definitely not tenable.

Both could definitely be a drastic change in how the game is played, but it would depend on the exact implementation.

The period of election isn't known, so I'm fudging a bit here, but it wouldn't be quite as simple as pile up and win. The existing delegate and founder, if they exist, would still retain the power to eject and ban, so moving in over a span of several hours would merely be an adorable reenactment of 2005-era tactics - and would be soundly rebuffed as long as anybody happened to be paying attention. Rather, if voting periods could begin and end independent of updates, that would potentially allow a different set of people to take point on a regional-officer-voting-raid - people whose timezones don't allow them to be present at updates, and people whose WA nations are tied up elsewhere. The former is probably a good thing, but the latter is a lot more questionable (and that's ignoring the really significant issues of vote stacking and seizing power in a bunch of regions simultaneously)

RORs could provide some amusement, but I don't by and large see them replacing traditional raids - a heightened influence cost, combined with the ability of the delegate to remove the raider officer, makes them tools of amusement at best in most regions. The exception might be regions with a non-executive WAD and executive ROs, but the prevalence of those is very difficult to determine in advance. Some founders make the WAD non-executive out of fear of being raided, but others do so for internal political reasons.

In terms of the actual mechanics of appointment, the needs of R/D gameplay seem to me to be at odds with the needs of general political governance. That is, those features which would be best for general play would also by and large overpower raiding, while attempted balancing measures would impede general governance. Specifically, I see that occurring in:

1) Appointment. It would be better for regional governments if appointing ROs did not cost influence, but that would give a huge amount of power to rogue or raider delegates, allowing as many reinforcements as they bring to watch during updates and defend against attempted liberations. However, implementing an influence cost would negatively impact new non R/D delegates with a very small pool of influence to draw on.

2) Retention. It would be better for regional governments if ROs were not automatically removed upon the removal of the delegate who appointed them, since terms of service don't necessarily overlap, and on a technical level, it would devastate a region's ability to govern itself if an accidental delegate CTE or resignation/removal from the WA eliminated all positions with regional controls. And yet, keeping officers after a delegate's removal from office would allow raiders to continue to exert control over a region even after the liberation of the delegacy proper.

I'm not sure how to reconcile these issues, myself.

[Morrdh]

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

Editing a region's Factbook should be free, its probably one of the most common tasks in the form of updating links, etc.

With Delegate Controls disabled the ROs should be able to function, least it allows regions that do not wish to be part of the R/D side of things remain not part of it.

With regards to influence costs, perhaps for the ROs have them be slightly more expensive but with the free ones remaining free. Thus being a WA Delegate with access to controls would mean everything being cheaper.

For appointing ROs Founders can do it for free, though it would cost WADs a great deal of influence to be able to do. Though also have WAD region controls include appointing ROs so if the controls are disabled by the Founder they can't appoint ROs.

At most I'd probably put a hard cap on the number of ROs, around three would be a good number but the cost of appointing them gets slightly more expensive.

[Evil Wolf]

Personally, I think Regional Officers should be able to take every action a WA Delegate or Founder can take so long as that action doesn't involve influence. So Regional Officers should be able to suppress posts, access the Regional Controls, and change the WFE, and so forth; Regional Officers should not be able to Eject & Ban, or implement a password. Those two powers, and any other influence requiring actions, should be exclusive to the Delegate and Founder alone and no other position should be able to possess them.

[SquareDisc City]

Also, let me say I definitely think in regions with founders, there should be no cost for founders to do any of this, but as a GCR, we will never have a founder.

Agreed.

I'll go on to say that I feel an RO created by the Founder should not incur any more influence cost to do things that the Founder themselves does - which, if I'm not mistaken, is zero. Or, at least, that the Founder has the option to require/not require ROs to use influence. Otherwise, from the point of view of a region maker wanting to share the load of running the region, creating an RO is in most respects inferior to sharing the password of the Founder account. I think giving people fewer reasons to password share is a good thing.

This could then be tied to a couple of other thoughts I had. One is that if the Founder creates ROs then CTEs, the WA delegate is not automatically made executive. More 'drastic' would be allowing the Founder to choose one of the ROs as a successor, to assume all powers of the Founder should the Founder CTE. Either way, this doesn't do anything for existing founderless regions, but it means new regions can be created and be a bit more secure from the raiding we know in the long term, perhaps addressing the concerns many RPers currently have. Of course, 'raiders' will seek to gain an RO position to wreak havoc with, but being something requiring actual personal interaction rather than timed button-clicking, I'm not sure that's entirely a bad thing.

As for ROs created by the WA delegate, my main concern is that anything that requires ROs to use influence is going to encourage multi-ing, unless you either require that an RO be a WA member or have a distinct one RO per person or one RO per person per region rule.