[Change #3] Regional Officers

[Defero Populus]

What powers Regional Officers can be given.

Any power the Founder/WA Delegate has except change other peoples power like taking away WA Delegate access or removing/appointing other Regional officers. I like the idea Mahaj proposed of a check box system for each specific power.

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

It should be in administration control and used like adding a tag, you select a nation then below it check each power to be appointed and click a add officer button. It should cost influence for the WA delegate to add officers. Also there should be a special tag on the Nation's page to identify that they are a regional officer. It should take around 24 hours to promote to a regional officer.

Whether the influence cost for officers using regional controls is the same as for delegates or different.

I don't see why it should be different.

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

The best you maybe could do is set a limit proportional to the regional population.

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

They should be able to. I don't see any reason on why not.

[Defero Populus]

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.

If the founder wants to keep the spirit of being solely in charge he would not appoint any officers. If the founder wanted to appoint officers and not give administration power to the WA Delegate that should be their choice.

[Mahaj]

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.

If the founder wants to keep the spirit of being solely in charge he would not appoint any officers. If the founder wanted to appoint officers and not give administration power to the WA Delegate that should be their choice.

Yes, I changed my mind on that.

[South Pacific Belschaft]

I have concerns about some of the functionality in this, such as the idea of an influence cost to add RO's, and the precise powers available. A direct influence cost would potentially make RO's useless for large founderless regions such as the GCR's, as the cost of adding one would be beyond any attainable level of influence. I also think that extending ban/ject powers is a mistake in that it would allow regions to put up impenetrable security systems, with multiple people with access so that you could have theoretically infinite points. This would make raids stupidly hard to deal with, unless there was an insane influence cost to add an RO - which then makes constructive use also near impossible.

What I would suggest is the following;

1. An increased influence cost for RO actions, including a new-influence cost for RMB suppresion/embassy making/WFE altering/etc - anything they do should cost influence. My suggestion would be twice the normal delegate cost, so that Ban/jection would cost 100% of a nations influence not 50% and other costs in line. This makes RO's less effective than the Delegate.
2. That the influence cost to add an RO be tied to the number and types of powers being given. An officer with no powers would cost a very small amount, an officer with all the powers an extremely large amount.
3. That the number of RO's available be limited as a % of the total WA endorsement count of the Delegate/region, with the lowest ranked/placed one being stripped of the office should it fall bellow that.
4. That regional officers must be WA nations.
5. That there be a cost to remove an officer, a % of the cost it took to add them. This would mean that you have to seriously consider who you give the RO to, and new delegates may be stuck with people they don't like having powers. This may be best done as being able to tick/untick boxes to change the nature of the RO powers for a cost, but a full three day wait to get rid of them entirely. This also prevents wasting huge influence by having to remove someone entirely just to change their jobs.
6. That no RO can be ejected or eject the delegate whilst they are an RO/Delegate. This would allow a struggle for control of the region between the two groups and would prevent very old high influence nations controlling things from behind the scenes by being able to eject the delegate if they don't do as told.

[Defero Populus]

I have concerns about some of the functionality in this, such as the idea of an influence cost to add RO's, and the precise powers available. A direct influence cost would potentially make RO's useless for large founderless regions such as the GCR's, as the cost of adding one would be beyond any attainable level of influence. I also think that extending ban/ject powers is a mistake in that it would allow regions to put up impenetrable security systems, with multiple people with access so that you could have theoretically infinite points. This would make raids stupidly hard to deal with, unless there was an insane influence cost to add an RO - which then makes constructive use also near impossible.

It wouldn't make raids stupidly hard if there was a limit on the number of ROs that can eject/ban or just a limit on the number of ROs. Plus if the ROs are marked they would just be first to be ejected and banned so they couldn't do anything.

1. An increased influence cost for RO actions, including a new-influence cost for RMB suppresion/embassy making/WFE altering/etc - anything they do should cost influence. My suggestion would be twice the normal delegate cost, so that Ban/jection would cost 100% of a nations influence not 50% and other costs in line. This makes RO's less effective than the Delegate.

Why should influence between ROs and the WAD be different?

2. That the influence cost to add an RO be tied to the number and types of powers being given. An officer with no powers would cost a very small amount, an officer with all the powers an extremely large amount.

I like this one

3. That the number of RO's available be limited as a % of the total WA endorsement count of the Delegate/region, with the lowest ranked/placed one being stripped of the office should it fall bellow that.

And this one

4. That regional officers must be WA nations.

I can see where that makes sense but I can also see where a region that wants to remain independent from the WA would want Officers as well. Just be careful to see who is RO and who isn't.

5. That there be a cost to remove an officer, a % of the cost it took to add them. This would mean that you have to seriously consider who you give the RO to, and new delegates may be stuck with people they don't like having powers. This may be best done as being able to tick/untick boxes to change the nature of the RO powers for a cost, but a full three day wait to get rid of them entirely. This also prevents wasting huge influence by having to remove someone entirely just to change their jobs.

This one is good too.

6. That no RO can be ejected or eject the delegate whilst they are an RO/Delegate. This would allow a struggle for control of the region between the two groups and would prevent very old high influence nations controlling things from behind the scenes by being able to eject the delegate if they don't do as told.

I would find it hilarious if the ROs ejected the Delegate.

[South Pacific Belschaft]

Why should RO's pay more? Because the Delegate isn't an RO, but is the Delegate. They should have more power and be able to do more stuff. The last thing we want is puppet Delegates with the RO's running the show.

[Defero Populus]

Why should RO's pay more? Because the Delegate isn't an RO, but is the Delegate. They should have more power and be able to do more stuff. The last thing we want is puppet Delegates with the RO's running the show.

An RO should have as much power as designated by who ever appointed them, only powers they should not have is the power to change someone elses power like allowing/removing WAD access or appointing/removing other ROs. Puppet Delegates with ROs running the show? How would that work exactly?

ROs should not have to pay more influence than the WAD.

[Bodobol]

1. An increased influence cost for RO actions, including a new-influence cost for RMB suppresion/embassy making/WFE altering/etc - anything they do should cost influence. My suggestion would be twice the normal delegate cost, so that Ban/jection would cost 100% of a nations influence not 50% and other costs in line. This makes RO's less effective than the Delegate.

Meh- I'd be perfectly fine with influence costs for suppression and embassy making, though I think that they should be able to freely edit the WFE altering and regional flag altering. Twice the Delegate cost seems a bit much- maybe it could be, say, 50% more? 100% more would be a bit much, especially for smaller regions like mine, in which even the most powerful RO I could appoint would only be able to banject 3-4 of our newest nations (with 4-8 influence).

2. That the influence cost to add an RO be tied to the number and types of powers being given. An officer with no powers would cost a very small amount, an officer with all the powers an extremely large amount.

Fair enough.

3. That the number of RO's available be limited as a % of the total WA endorsement count of the Delegate/region, with the lowest ranked/placed one being stripped of the office should it fall bellow that.

I'd be okay with this rule for Delegates, so as to limit the power of RO's in invasions, but the Founder should be able to appoint RO's at his/her discretion. Or there could be a certain period of time in office for Delegates where they can only elect a certain number of RO's, but after, say, 2-3 weeks or so in power, they can appoint as many as they wish. RO's will retain their power should a new Delegate come to power, and it should cost the Delegate influence to strip RO powers. The Founder, however, should be able to strip RO's of their power at their discretion.

4. That regional officers must be WA nations.

Not a big fan of this rule, mainly because of the 1-WA-nation-per-player rule already in place. I have several puppets in different regions I'm involved with, and a couple of them hold government positions. They should be allowed to gain RO powers despite the fact that this nation is my only WA nation.

5. That there be a cost to remove an officer, a % of the cost it took to add them. This would mean that you have to seriously consider who you give the RO to, and new delegates may be stuck with people they don't like having powers. This may be best done as being able to tick/untick boxes to change the nature of the RO powers for a cost, but a full three day wait to get rid of them entirely. This also prevents wasting huge influence by having to remove someone entirely just to change their jobs.

I agree.

6. That no RO can be ejected or eject the delegate whilst they are an RO/Delegate. This would allow a struggle for control of the region between the two groups and would prevent very old high influence nations controlling things from behind the scenes by being able to eject the delegate if they don't do as told.

I agree with this for the most part, though the Founder should be able to ban/eject ROs as they please, just as they currently can with Delegates.

[Defero Populus]

1. An increased influence cost for RO actions, including a new-influence cost for RMB suppresion/embassy making/WFE altering/etc - anything they do should cost influence. My suggestion would be twice the normal delegate cost, so that Ban/jection would cost 100% of a nations influence not 50% and other costs in line. This makes RO's less effective than the Delegate.

Meh- I'd be perfectly fine with influence costs for suppression and embassy making, though I think that they should be able to freely edit the WFE altering and regional flag altering. Twice the Delegate cost seems a bit much- maybe it could be, say, 50% more? 100% more would be a bit much, especially for smaller regions like mine, in which even the most powerful RO I could appoint would only be able to banject 3-4 of our newest nations (with 4-8 influence).

Why should it cost more for ROs than the WAD?

[Bodobol]

Meh- I'd be perfectly fine with influence costs for suppression and embassy making, though I think that they should be able to freely edit the WFE altering and regional flag altering. Twice the Delegate cost seems a bit much- maybe it could be, say, 50% more? 100% more would be a bit much, especially for smaller regions like mine, in which even the most powerful RO I could appoint would only be able to banject 3-4 of our newest nations (with 4-8 influence).

Why should it cost more for ROs than the WAD?

What Belschaft said- the WAD is meant to be a more powerful position than the ROs. Giving them the same abilities, for the same influence cost, would be like giving congress(wo)men the same powers as the President. The WAD is representative of the entire region- in most cases- while the ROs are not.

[Mahaj]

There's no reason why the RO should have to be a WA nation.

Non-WA nations play a big part in regions too.

[Bodobol]

There's no reason why the RO should have to be a WA nation.

Non-WA nations play a big part in regions too.

Agreed. Especially in Anti-WA regions, like Gatesville.

[South Pacific Belschaft]

There's no reason why the RO should have to be a WA nation.

Non-WA nations play a big part in regions too.

With RO actions costing influence, in practical terms they will need to be WA to do much of anything.

*shrugs*

It doesn't really matter either way, that one.

[Defero Populus]

Why should it cost more for ROs than the WAD?

What Belschaft said- the WAD is meant to be a more powerful position than the ROs. Giving them the same abilities, for the same influence cost, would be like giving congress(wo)men the same powers as the President. The WAD is representative of the entire region- in most cases- while the ROs are not.

Why is it meant to be that way? What if the WAD does not have administrative access are they still meant to be more powerful? An RO should have as much power as designated by who ever appointed them, only powers they should not have is the power to change someone elses power like allowing/removing WAD access or appointing/removing other ROs. It is Like the President trusting his cabinet or Vice President with powers. You could have elections for ROs that would make them representatives of the region.

ROs should not have to pay more than the WAD.

[Defero Populus]

There's no reason why the RO should have to be a WA nation.

Non-WA nations play a big part in regions too.

I agree, although a WAD or Founder might appoint their own puppet to RO.

[Bodobol]

What Belschaft said- the WAD is meant to be a more powerful position than the ROs. Giving them the same abilities, for the same influence cost, would be like giving congress(wo)men the same powers as the President. The WAD is representative of the entire region- in most cases- while the ROs are not.

Why is it meant to be that way? What if the WAD does not have administrative access are they still meant to be more powerful? An RO should have as much power as designated by who ever appointed them, only powers they should not have is the power to change someone elses power like allowing/removing WAD access or appointing/removing other ROs. It is Like the President trusting his cabinet or Vice President with powers. You could have elections for ROs that would make them representatives of the region.

ROs should not have to pay more than the WAD.

It is meant to be that way, because the WAD is elected through the popular vote of the people (or invaders). ROs, on the other hand, are simply, in a sense, the Delegate's employees, helping them to do their job. However, because ROs essentially only represent the wishes of the Founder and/or Delegate, and not necessarily the will of the majority, an increased influence cost will be a neat little power check to prevent them from becoming as powerful as the Delegate.

If the WAD does not have administrative powers, then the Founder is free to appoint ROs that are more powerful than the Delegate; in some regions, the sole purpose of the Delegate is voting on WA Resolutions.

There's no reason why the RO should have to be a WA nation.

Non-WA nations play a big part in regions too.

With RO actions costing influence, in practical terms they will need to be WA to do much of anything.

*shrugs*

It doesn't really matter either way, that one.

You have a point there, but just because something is practical, shouldn't mean it should be enforced. If people want to be impractical, their choice.

Of course, it's entirely possible to gain a decent amount of influence even if you're not in the WA; it will just take significantly longer.

There's no reason why the RO should have to be a WA nation.

Non-WA nations play a big part in regions too.

I agree, although a WAD or Founder might appoint their own puppet to RO.

The point in them doing that being...?

[Defero Populus]

Why is it meant to be that way? What if the WAD does not have administrative access are they still meant to be more powerful? An RO should have as much power as designated by who ever appointed them, only powers they should not have is the power to change someone elses power like allowing/removing WAD access or appointing/removing other ROs. It is Like the President trusting his cabinet or Vice President with powers. You could have elections for ROs that would make them representatives of the region.

ROs should not have to pay more than the WAD.

It is meant to be that way, because the WAD is elected through the popular vote of the people (or invaders). ROs, on the other hand, are simply, in a sense, the Delegate's employees, helping them to do their job. However, because ROs essentially only represent the wishes of the Founder and/or Delegate, and not necessarily the will of the majority, an increased influence cost will be a neat little power check to prevent them from becoming as powerful as the Delegate.

If the WAD does not have administrative powers, then the Founder is free to appoint ROs that are more powerful than the Delegate; in some regions, the sole purpose of the Delegate is voting on WA Resolutions.

No the WAD is elected through approval rating not popular vote because there is not set elections. Well there is no way for a RO to have all the powers of a Delegate, and if you didn't want them to get to strong don't give them a lot of power. A delegate does not always have a majority endorsements. So there is no reason to make it different cost.

If the WAD does not have administrative powers should the influence of an RO then equal what a administrative Delegate would cost?

[Bodobol]

It is meant to be that way, because the WAD is elected through the popular vote of the people (or invaders). ROs, on the other hand, are simply, in a sense, the Delegate's employees, helping them to do their job. However, because ROs essentially only represent the wishes of the Founder and/or Delegate, and not necessarily the will of the majority, an increased influence cost will be a neat little power check to prevent them from becoming as powerful as the Delegate.

If the WAD does not have administrative powers, then the Founder is free to appoint ROs that are more powerful than the Delegate; in some regions, the sole purpose of the Delegate is voting on WA Resolutions.

No the WAD is elected through approval rating not popular vote because there is not set elections. Well there is no way for a RO to have all the powers of a Delegate, and if you didn't want them to get to strong don't give them a lot of power. A delegate does not always have a majority endorsements. So there is no reason to make it different cost.

If the WAD does not have administrative powers should the influence of an RO then equal what a administrative Delegate would cost?

Your first paragraph consists of valid points; however, because WADs are elected by approval ratings and ROs are appointed by WADs, the WADs are more representative of the region as a whole, and should thus have more power.

And to your second paragraph; no. They should cost the same as it costs other ROs, for consistency reasons.

[Defero Populus]

No the WAD is elected through approval rating not popular vote because there is not set elections. Well there is no way for a RO to have all the powers of a Delegate, and if you didn't want them to get to strong don't give them a lot of power. A delegate does not always have a majority endorsements. So there is no reason to make it different cost.

If the WAD does not have administrative powers should the influence of an RO then equal what a administrative Delegate would cost?

Your first paragraph consists of valid points; however, because WADs are elected by approval ratings and ROs are appointed by WADs, the WADs are more representative of the region as a whole, and should thus have more power.

And to your second paragraph; no. They should cost the same as it costs other ROs, for consistency reasons.

The WAD already has more power than a RO could ever have such as Region's vote in the WA and appointing/removing ROs. If they are trusted with a power as appointed to them by the Founder or WAD they should not have to use more influence than the WAD. Maybe for consistency reasons the influence cost should be the same.

The only thing the WAD is a representative of is the Region's most trusted person to vote in the WA.

[Bodobol]

Your first paragraph consists of valid points; however, because WADs are elected by approval ratings and ROs are appointed by WADs, the WADs are more representative of the region as a whole, and should thus have more power.

And to your second paragraph; no. They should cost the same as it costs other ROs, for consistency reasons.

The WAD already has more power than a RO could ever have such as Region's vote in the WA and appointing/removing ROs. If they are trusted with a power as appointed to them by the Founder or WAD they should not have to use more influence than the WAD. Maybe for consistency reasons the influence cost should be the same.

But again; WADs are chosen through approval rating, RO's aren't. Also, giving RO's the same power as the Delegate would significantly increase the power of large-scale invaders, as they could all endorse each other, and the Delegate could simply appoint as many overpowered RO's as he/she wishes, thereby making it extremely more difficult for defenders to free the region.

[Defero Populus]

The WAD already has more power than a RO could ever have such as Region's vote in the WA and appointing/removing ROs. If they are trusted with a power as appointed to them by the Founder or WAD they should not have to use more influence than the WAD. Maybe for consistency reasons the influence cost should be the same.

But again; WADs are chosen through approval rating, RO's aren't. Also, giving RO's the same power as the Delegate would significantly increase the power of large-scale invaders, as they could all endorse each other, and the Delegate could simply appoint as many overpowered RO's as he/she wishes, thereby making it extremely more difficult for defenders to free the region.

The only approval the WAD gets is the approval to vote in the WA. I would cost a ton of influence to make a powerful RO so they could not make as many as they wish just as much as they can afford and plus if there is a waiting period like 24 hours before the promotion takes place it would make it dumb to try it. Then they could not eject and ban anyone. It would not make it easier for raiders.

[Bodobol]

But again; WADs are chosen through approval rating, RO's aren't. Also, giving RO's the same power as the Delegate would significantly increase the power of large-scale invaders, as they could all endorse each other, and the Delegate could simply appoint as many overpowered RO's as he/she wishes, thereby making it extremely more difficult for defenders to free the region.

The only approval the WAD gets is the approval to vote in the WA. I would cost a ton of influence to make a powerful RO so they could not make as many as they wish just as much as they can afford and plus if there is a waiting period like 24 hours before the promotion takes place it would make it dumb to try it. Then they could not eject and ban anyone. It would not make it easier for raiders.

Also valid points; I rest my case with the argument about raiders. Back to the original one; the WAD almost has the highest approval rating of any WA nation in the region. Even if it only has one or two more endorsements than another member of the same region, it is still the most popular nation. RO's require no popularity to gain the position of RO, unlike WAD's. Allowing RO's to go about with all the abilities of the Delegate (save for larger votes on WA Resolutions) will remove a democratic element of regional gameplay, and a fun one, too. It also makes power more meaningless, the more RO's you have.

[Defero Populus]

The only approval the WAD gets is the approval to vote in the WA. I would cost a ton of influence to make a powerful RO so they could not make as many as they wish just as much as they can afford and plus if there is a waiting period like 24 hours before the promotion takes place it would make it dumb to try it. Then they could not eject and ban anyone. It would not make it easier for raiders.

Also valid points; I rest my case with the argument about raiders. Back to the original one; the WAD almost has the highest approval rating of any WA nation in the region. Even if it only has one or two more endorsements than another member of the same region, it is still the most popular nation. RO's require no popularity to gain the position of RO, unlike WAD's. Allowing RO's to go about with all the abilities of the Delegate (save for larger votes on WA Resolutions) will remove a democratic element of regional gameplay, and a fun one, too. It also makes power more meaningless, the more RO's you have.

In a region of 50 and one nation has 1 endorsement and is WA delegate is that better than appointing ROs? And approval rating is not always the best way to pick a leader since people trade endorsements for other endorsements or other things. So the WAD may not even represent the majority so why should it be different influence cost for ROs? Even without large votes on WA Resolutions the WAD would still always have more power than the Delegate you also could just not give tons of power to one RO. It does not remove any democratic elements to the game.

[The Blaatschapen]

Wouldn't a regional officer coup be funny, even if short lived though?

We could say that if the appointer has lost the position (if the delegate appointed the RO and then lost the delegacy), the RO loses his position as well.

That way an RO *could* coup, but it would backfire as well.

The RO would lose their position as RO. However, if for example, the RO was the person with the 2nd biggest amount of endorsements... They'd become delegate.

Problem solved

[Frisbeeteria]

There's no reason why the RO should have to be a WA nation.

Non-WA nations play a big part in regions too.

Non WA nations are slow to gain influence, and would therefore be limited. Not that they couldn't be useful in tasks that don't require influence, but it is somewhat limiting.

As a thought, should being an RO be added to the influence calculation? At present, only time and endorsements add to influence. They'd obviously be influential in the traditional sense, so would it make sense to offer them actual Influence as part of their remit? I have no idea if this is practical, but I thought I'd toss it out.