[Change #3] Regional Officers

[Esternial]

Love this idea.

Perhaps the best way to give powers to the regional officer is to have the founder or delegate tick off items in a checkbox

example

[] Ability to edit the World Factbook Entry
[] Ability to accept, reject, or apply for embassies
[] Ability to eject nations
[] Ability to ban nations
[] Ability to suppress or unsuppress Regional Message Board posts
[] No ability


without letting people check "no Ability" and one or more of the other options.

Appointing and removing officers should have a lag time of 3 or so days (however long it currently takes to create an embassy), and ought to cost no influence for a founder but for a delegate take half the influence of what it would take to impose a password on the region.

For the regional officer, there ought to be a cost for using all the controls, even those that don't cost the delegate (such as WFE editing). Those that don't cost the delegate should have a very low cost, but ejecting should have a higher cost than it does for the delegate, and banning an even higher one.

As for a limit, I don't think so, but perhaps tweak the influence costs so that its higher for the delegate and officers when there is a greater number of officers.

If delegate access is denied, I think officer's access should be denied as well, to fit with the spirit of what the founder is getting at by restricting delegate access.^*

^*

Eh, true.

I drop that claim then.

But in order to prevent confusion, under the "Remove delegate access" button on regional control should also have a "remove officer's access"

---

Mahaj has pretty much presented my own position on this, save for my take on influence cost. Editing the WFE shouldn't have a cost. I might be able to settle with the raised costs for any other action, but I'd prefer the influence cost being equal to that of the WA delegate.

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.

I agree that a Founder should be able to appoint a RO as their successor, should they CTE.

A simple "[] Successor" added to the list should suffice, available only to the Founder, of course.

[Esternial]

Will the presence of a Regional Officers prevent WA Delegates from automatically switching back to default from non-executive if the Founder has CTE'd?

[Astarial]

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.

This is actually an interesting proposal - it would take ROs basically entirely outside of the R/D issue and make them purely non-military GP. There wouldn't need to be an influence cost to establish them, then, and they could persist through delegacy changes without any issues.

I would even be okay with opening it up to allow ROs to eject, for 1.5x influence cost of the delegate (which would equate to the amount it would cost the delegate to ban), but not to ban or to password.

I am strongly opposed to allowing the presence of ROs to allow a delegacy to not become executive with a founder's CTE, though.

[Esternial]

I am strongly opposed to allowing the presence of ROs to allow a delegacy to not become executive with a founder's CTE, though.

I am highly in favour to allow the presence of ROs to allow a delegacy to remain non-executive if it has been set by the founder prior to his/hers CTE.

[Acitcratna]

What about changing the influence equation entirely? Delegates gain more influence through endorsements, so what if Officers gained more influence from a different source entirely?

[Shizensky]

What about changing the influence equation entirely? Delegates gain more influence through endorsements, so what if Officers gained more influence from a different source entirely?

I'm not sure that would change a lot - everybody gains influence more quickly with endorsements, but you'll still gain influence regardless of WA status.

It would be kind of cool to see a sort of bleed effect with influence, although that could get complicated to develop. Instead endorsements alone being the influence boost, maybe the influence of the endorser could help add to the endorsee's influence more quickly. If a really influential nation is giving an endorsement to a nation with low influence, shouldn't that large amount of influence mean something? But this would probably need to work both ways - endorsing a nation or being endorsed by a nation with low influence would slow down the influence gain of the more influential nation.

Apologies for branching off topic.

[The Black Hat Guy]

I am strongly opposed to allowing the presence of ROs to allow a delegacy to not become executive with a founder's CTE, though.

I am highly in favour to allow the presence of ROs to allow a delegacy to remain non-executive if it has been set by the founder prior to his/hers CTE.

I'm going to have to disagree. Assuming that ROs, in general, are going to follow Mahaj's initial suggestion, then we can't guarantee that collectively they have the same powers as the WA Delegate does, as they would need to if there is not to be one supreme executive force. Coupling with that, previous ideas (that I agree with) have suggested that ROs use more influence than Delegates in order to use their abilities. If this is the case, then having no Delegate that is able to ban/eject more efficiently spells trouble for a region.

Then for another issue - unless ROs have the ability to appoint other ROs, if there's no Founder or Delegate to appoint them, then the region cannot add or change existing ROs, causing a government standstill. And who would make the decision to make the Delegate executive? If the Founder CTE's, perhaps the region wants a different single administrator, but as it stands, ROs don't have the power to make a Delegate executive - even if we were to give them that power, which RO would it be? How would that be decided? It just seems to add a huge amount of complexity to a system that is already complicated enough without ROs even existing, notwithstanding this proposed system.

[Acitcratna]

What about changing the influence equation entirely? Delegates gain more influence through endorsements, so what if Officers gained more influence from a different source entirely?

I'm not sure that would change a lot - everybody gains influence more quickly with endorsements, but you'll still gain influence regardless of WA status.

It would be kind of cool to see a sort of bleed effect with influence, although that could get complicated to develop. Instead endorsements alone being the influence boost, maybe the influence of the endorser could help add to the endorsee's influence more quickly. If a really influential nation is giving an endorsement to a nation with low influence, shouldn't that large amount of influence mean something? But this would probably need to work both ways - endorsing a nation or being endorsed by a nation with low influence would slow down the influence gain of the more influential nation.

Apologies for branching off topic.

I like that. That makes much more sense, but the problem is it would be hard to both create and carry out, as you said.

Perhaps, if it is not possible to do that, a founder could distribute his own influence freely? Like delegates spending influence for regional controls, Founders should be able to invest theirs in whomever they desire. It's not like founders really need it.

[Esternial]

I am highly in favour to allow the presence of ROs to allow a delegacy to remain non-executive if it has been set by the founder prior to his/hers CTE.

I'm going to have to disagree. Assuming that ROs, in general, are going to follow Mahaj's initial suggestion, then we can't guarantee that collectively they have the same powers as the WA Delegate does, as they would need to if there is not to be one supreme executive force. Coupling with that, previous ideas (that I agree with) have suggested that ROs use more influence than Delegates in order to use their abilities. If this is the case, then having no Delegate that is able to ban/eject more efficiently spells trouble for a region.

Then for another issue - unless ROs have the ability to appoint other ROs, if there's no Founder or Delegate to appoint them, then the region cannot add or change existing ROs, causing a government standstill. And who would make the decision to make the Delegate executive? If the Founder CTE's, perhaps the region wants a different single administrator, but as it stands, ROs don't have the power to make a Delegate executive - even if we were to give them that power, which RO would it be? How would that be decided? It just seems to add a huge amount of complexity to a system that is already complicated enough without ROs even existing, notwithstanding this proposed system.

You have a point. I'd suggest countering the issue with Custodians, but perhaps that'd create more trouble than it's worth.

It would automatically make a formerly protected region wide open to raids, though.

[Cerian Quilor]

If founder CTEs, delegate is automatically exec

[Astarial]

Black Hat nailed my reasoning - I just couldn't be bothered to type it all out.

Esternial: Yes, sometimes regions who were once protected are going to become vulnerable. Sometimes a founder CTEs. Sometimes a delegate goes AWOL. Sometimes a password gets leaked. It's not the end of the world, and it would be highly problematic if the chain of safeguards - which already contains several links - were to grow long enough to prevent any region from ever actually losing its net. If you can't maintain an active founder, and you can't maintain an active delegate or one with enough endorsements to avoid being targeted, and you can't keep a secret password secret... why should you get another opt out?

[Sedgistan]

I am strongly opposed to allowing the presence of ROs to allow a delegacy to not become executive with a founder's CTE, though.

Agreed - I don't envisage that the current situation (Delegates automatically gaining full access to regional controls if the founder is not present in the region) will change.

[Evil Wolf]

Sedgistan, has the MOD/ADMIN team come up with a good picture of what powers the Regional Officers will possess yet, or are they still deciding?

[Levivania]

when will these changes be implemented?

[Owls in a Fridge]

when will these changes be implemented?

*wishes that people would bother reading*

viewtopic.php?f=32&t=258994&start=100#p17077282

[Improving Wordiness]

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.

I am going to agree with EW here. If it requires influence then regional officers should not be able to access that power.
A regional officer should be required to have WA and two endorsements ( must like if you want to submit a resolution )
A founder should be able to appoint regional officers.
Being able to name the positions would be kinda fun and I think most regions would welcome that.
I believe there should be a cap on how many officers can be appointed. 3 to me seems a reasonable limit.
I believe delegates should be able to be appointed as a regional officer so they can access limited powers in the region (non influence powers) if the founder does not want to make them executive but does want them to have some abilities.
Executive delegate should be able to appoint officers at a small cost to influence.

thats my 2 cents

[Nullarni]

A regional officer should be required to have WA and two endorsements ( must like if you want to submit a resolution )

I am not sure what the point of this would be. Is this essentially a means to verify identity? If so, I feel that Founders and Delegates would be better served if they simply perform their due diligence instead.

The reason I take issue with this is the fact that in my region, the nations I would make officers are not members of the WA. That would force them to make WA puppets just to use the controls, which is... clunky. Especially since one of them participates in gameplay. This would force him to decide between participating in defending and having access to regional controls... Which seems to be rather exclusionary.

Also, regional officers would help break up the oligarchy that is created by forcing the WA Delegate to be the region's "second in command". But requiring WA membership increases the WA's importance in regional politics, which is fine unless the majority of your region has little or no interest in the WA... Like mine.

[Morrdh]

A regional officer should be required to have WA and two endorsements ( must like if you want to submit a resolution )

I am not sure what the point of this would be. Is this essentially a means to verify identity? If so, I feel that Founders and Delegates would be better served if they simply perform their due diligence instead.

The reason I take issue with this is the fact that in my region, the nations I would make officers are not members of the WA. That would force them to make WA puppets just to use the controls, which is... clunky. Especially since one of them participates in gameplay. This would force him to decide between participating in defending and having access to regional controls... Which seems to be rather exclusionary.

Also, regional officers would help break up the oligarchy that is created by forcing the WA Delegate to be the region's "second in command". But requiring WA membership increases the WA's importance in regional politics, which is fine unless the majority of your region has little or no interest in the WA... Like mine.

Ditto, best to keep ROs separate from the WA.

[Improving Wordiness]

Then you would have puppets in multiple regions with power over regions. It may be limited but it remains power.
Now if you take a look at how many regions are tagged ....the invader delegate drops WA.....but keeps power over the region until the next update. Already there is an advantage. Join WA for 30 seconds to tag a region but hold power over it for 12 hours.
Now consider if the invader delegate puts two or 3 regional officers in place. When do they lose power? When the delegate loses seat? or is it another 12 hour window? If they are non-WA then...what you now have is an invader delegate after 30 seconds of having WA on a nation...moves 3 puppets into the region and makes them regional officers. One person holding 4 seats of power after a very brief WA switch.
If you take into account how many regions can be tagged in a single update the whole thing spirals.


At least if you need a WA nation it will restrict it to not include puppets.

[Dragomere]

You know....All I see WA Delegates as a Regional Officer that is a Game Created Position. I believe that the WA Delegate and Regional Officers should be able to have customized access. I am NOT saying that if a delegate is not allowed to something then a RO would not be allowed. I mean that both positions should have the access customized for each positions so that a delegate could not have access, yet an RO could (this can be applied to any part of the regional controls).

Also...Requiring WA membership is burdensome, though it might benefit to allow an option for an election function for ROs.

[Astarial]

If you take into account how many regions can be tagged in a single update the whole thing spirals.

No it doesn't. The scenario you're proposing only works if it costs zero influence to appoint officers, and the consensus in the thread is that it should cost "some". Tag raiders have minimal influence in any region they hit after only a single update, and assuming costs are implemented sensibly, would not be able to appoint even one officer.

I agree with Nullarni and Morrdh that WA membership should not be required to be a Regional Officer, and I further think that there is no compelling reason to limit the number of officers to only three. Different regions have different needs.

[Nullarni]

Then you would have puppets in multiple regions with power over regions. It may be limited but it remains power.

I, personally, am not concerned about this. You already have plenty of people who have political and governmental power across several regions, and remember most regions work independently from one another. Implementation of Regional Officers only legitimizes regional governments a little better. It would give those people the same power they always had, but you are no longer forcing them to go through a third party. Besides, is it really the end of the world if people are allowed to mass tg without stamps a couple of regions they hold prominent positions in?

Now if you take a look at how many regions are tagged ....the invader delegate drops WA.....but keeps power over the region until the next update. Already there is an advantage. Join WA for 30 seconds to tag a region but hold power over it for 12 hours.
Now consider if the invader delegate puts two or 3 regional officers in place. When do they lose power? When the delegate loses seat? or is it another 12 hour window? If they are non-WA then...what you now have is an invader delegate after 30 seconds of having WA on a nation...moves 3 puppets into the region and makes them regional officers. One person holding 4 seats of power after a very brief WA switch.
If you take into account how many regions can be tagged in a single update the whole thing spirals.

I feel it would be better if other solutions were put in place. Perhaps if they did what Astarial suggested and made it cost influence. Perhaps give the RO powers a timer before they go into effect or before the powers are removed.

Also, I believe it would be best to keep ROs separate from the Delegates that put them in place. If the delegate sets officers and is then removed in a raid, the ROs should remain in power until a new delegate uses the regional controls remove them. This maintains the idea that ROs make up the region's legitimate government. You may have lost the delegacy to an invading force, but your government will be still relatively intact... Until the invading force takes the appropriate measures and pays the appropriate cost to oust the region's current government.

Think of this as a way to better secure regions from outside influence. If you add in some cost or costs to make its use impractical for raiders, this will give regions a tool to better protect themselves and legitimize their regional government, while minimizing the effects of raiders using it aggressively. But requiring WA membership makes this feature exclusive rather than inclusive. I mean, think about the Anti-WA regions out there. There aren't a lot, but you are still cutting them off from using game mechanics to secure themselves.

[Darwinish Brentsylvania]

Another great feature I'd like to add to my region.

[Festavo]

I support this

[Improving Wordiness]

It does not need support as the change is apparently going to be made sometime *points at admins* . It looks like it still needs discussion though.

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

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