NationStates

Mahaj wrote:I think the new delegate shouldn't be able to remove officers immediately: This way they can serve as a defense mechanism for the region if they so choose.

As has already been said, that's tilting the field in defender's favour. You've already got an institutionalized advantage with Liberation Proposals, you don't really need anything else.

There should be a cost for removing officers, and appoint new officers at the standard cost for all delegates.

Eh... seems pretty fishy. Part of the fun of R/D was when raiders occupied regions (Japan, Coffee House, et al) and freeing them was a challenge. RO's have the potential to make it even more challenging, and even more fun. To essentially force a low influence delegate to not use them seems pretty fenda-leaning again, and sucks for native delegates of founderless regions.

In order to keep things balanced so you don't have the possibility of lots and lots of nations able to eject or ban nations to thwart liberations (which is unfair to the game and hurts gameplay), perhaps it should be made so that officers cannot eject or ban during update?

No, what you are suggesting here hurts Gameplay, by once again tilting things toward Defenderism. Raiders may be the "baddies" of R/D, but without them the subgame wouldn't exist. And for all the native rights spiel, nobody wants the subgame to die. Firmly opposed.

Another possibility to consider is that to limit the usage of officers ejecting and banning, the ejection cost drains from both the officer and the regional delegate.

This I sort of agree with, but not 100%. Instead of it effecting the delegate, why not cap RO influence gains at half of the delegate's? That way they can banject as normal, without it effecting the Delegate too much. Just my 2 cents.

Charax wrote:

Mahaj wrote:I think the new delegate shouldn't be able to remove officers immediately: This way they can serve as a defense mechanism for the region if they so choose.

As has already been said, that's tilting the field in defender's favour. You've already got an institutionalized advantage with Liberation Proposals, you don't really need anything else.

Not really.

1. Liberation proposals are not an institutionalized advantage for defenders.

2. Raider leads would have ROs that couldn't be immediately removed by liberating defenders.

ErasmoGnome wrote:The method for appointing and removing officers, including the length of time it takes to do so, and whether this costs influence - I would say one day, and it should cost influence proportional to the amount of influence the Regional Officer has before becoming an RO. Not necessary 1:1, but it makes sense that the more powerful a regional officer would be the more it should cost to put them in power.

I disagree strongly here - this would unfairly penalize new players who get elected/appointed/otherwise made delegate, and who wish to appoint an old, high-influence nation to help them administer the region. If appointing ROs is to have an influence cost, it should be static across the board.

Astarial wrote:

ErasmoGnome wrote:The method for appointing and removing officers, including the length of time it takes to do so, and whether this costs influence - I would say one day, and it should cost influence proportional to the amount of influence the Regional Officer has before becoming an RO. Not necessary 1:1, but it makes sense that the more powerful a regional officer would be the more it should cost to put them in power.

I disagree strongly here - this would unfairly penalize new players who get elected/appointed/otherwise made delegate, and who wish to appoint an old, high-influence nation to help them administer the region. If appointing ROs is to have an influence cost, it should be static across the board.

That's very true. The suggestion was more to prevent abuse of the system. While not a raider myself, it seems unfairly skewed towards fendas to allow regions to place into power hugely influential nations with the power to eject and ban, that'll simply never run out of influence - and even if they do run out, another giant can just be appointed.

Perhaps there is a better solution. But I'd like to see ROs implemented in a balanced way, and a proportional cost isn't perfect, but it does help balance them.

I initially like this idea because it allows for a stronger correlation between the in game and forum based GP and RP. I also love the idea of ROs having titles that can be changed (Minister, Guardian, etc.).

However, not all regions and players enjoy the subgame of defending\raiding. If anything there should be controls in place that allow for those who enjoy that aspect of gameplay to utilize it while those not interested in raiding/defending turn it off or at least counter it in some way.

- What is the time frame for the implementation of these changes?

- What if a delegate wants to appoint multiple ROs? For example, in a small region a delegate or founder appoints every resident as an RO - maybe its a form of government or a reward for being a resident or meant to increase the odds of coups or internal defending\raiding. Is there a limit to the number of ROs?

- Can delegates have the opportunity to approve an RO action? So an RO changes the World Factbook but before the changes go live, the delegate gets a TG\email and has to click approve or disapprove?

- How does this work in terms of delegates and endorsements? If an RO gains more endorsements than the delegate and becomes the delegate then they lose their RO position (?). Does the delegate automatically become an RO? Should this be an automatic feature that the former delegate automatically becomes an RO?

- I think that the delegate should have one power that an RO can't have, to distinguish the two clearly (maybe the power to ban nations?). A delegate should be one tier above ROs so that ROs would have to join forces to combat\overwhelm the delegate.

- Slightly unrelated, but I wonder if the poll feature could be given as a power to delegates. Kind of like the polls that people post on their NS forum posts. It would help immensely with elections or contests or running region wide polls.

Escade wrote:- What if a delegate wants to appoint multiple ROs? For example, in a small region a delegate or founder appoints every resident as an RO - maybe its a form of government or a reward for being a resident or meant to increase the odds of coups or internal defending\raiding. Is there a limit to the number of ROs?

I don't personally see any compelling reason to limit the number of ROs.

Can delegates have the opportunity to approve an RO action? So an RO changes the World Factbook but before the changes go live, the delegate gets a TG\email and has to click approve or disapprove?

This would actually remove a lot of the utility of ROs - one of the major benefits they offer is the ability to handle things even in the delegate's absence (WFE changes, RMB suppression, etc). If they can no longer do that, their only purpose would be to distribute influence costs... and if that's all they're good for, it'd be better just to implement a way to donate influence directly.

How does this work in terms of delegates and endorsements? If an RO gains more endorsements than the delegate and becomes the delegate then they lose their RO position (?). Does the delegate automatically become an RO? Should this be an automatic feature that the former delegate automatically becomes an RO?

Noooo, that would be very very bad - no way should delegates be automatically given RO status when deposed. That would be a Very Bad Thing for raiding, defending, couping, liberating coups, you name it.

The other way around, though... I don't see any reason why an RO who became delegate couldn't keep their RO status, and return to it once no longer delegate.

I think that the delegate should have one power that an RO can't have, to distinguish the two clearly (maybe the power to ban nations?). A delegate should be one tier above ROs so that ROs would have to join forces to combat\overwhelm the delegate.

A special power... like perhaps the power to appoint ROs?

I haven't checked every post in this thread, but have RPers etc. also reacted on this particular proposal? They might want some abilities too, to enhance their regional roleplays with this? (not sure; since I'm not one)

I didn't think RPers knew that subforums existed under the top 4.

The Blaatschapen wrote:I haven't checked every post in this thread, but have RPers etc. also reacted on this particular proposal? They might want some abilities too, to enhance their regional roleplays with this? (not sure; since I'm not one)

I'm an occasional RPer, but this doesn't really do anything for RP.

Mahaj wrote:

Charax wrote:As has already been said, that's tilting the field in defender's favour. You've already got an institutionalized advantage with Liberation Proposals, you don't really need anything else.

Not really.

1. Liberation proposals are not an institutionalized advantage for defenders.

2. Raider leads would have ROs that couldn't be immediately removed by liberating defenders.

That would make the game move slower, and thus dwindle activity and make the game a bit more boring, IMO.

And since when are Liberations not an advantage for Defenders?

I'm going to talk from the perspective of our large region, which wants to stay stable and avoid rogue delegates. Plus we want to manage our regular delegate turnovers due to elections. We already have a group of people we have appointed as a region which would be the equivalent of this proposal, called our Security Council.

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.

• The method for appointing and removing officers, including the length of time it takes to do so, and whether this costs influence.
  I think it should cost influence to appoint an officer for certain of the duties. Taking Mahaj's list:
  
  • [] 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
  I would want to make it that everything but ban/eject has no initial influence cost. But that ban/eject costs an amount of influence proportional to the appointee's influence. So that if a delegate is appointing someone with a high influence (therefore more able to ban/eject more nations) it costs more of the delegate's influence to get them into that position. If the appointee doesn't have a lot of influence, then they wouldn't be able to do a lot of damage, so less initial cost.
  
  From our perspective, we would want the regional officers to continue from one delegate to the next, preferably with no influence cost. Our newly elected delegate might not have a lot of influence, but we want them to be secure in their office. It wouldn't make sense to keep appointing officers at the beginning of a term if it cost something. I think removing officers should definitely cost influence, whether it's based on the length they've been an RO or their current influence, so that a newly elected delegate can't immediately be able to get rid of all the RO's.
  
• Whether the influence cost for officers using regional controls is the same as for delegates or different.
  I'd personally be in favor of the influence cost being the same. With the influence rules that are already in place, the delegate that's in power for 6 months is already going to have the most influence, so if they decide not to leave peaceably when their term is up, it would already be hard to get rid of them.
  
• Whether there is a limit on the number of officers that can have certain powers (such as to eject and ban).
  Unless there's some hard number limit, anything based on number of nations would give us more than enough positions, so no comment here.
  
• Whether officers can access regional controls when the delegate's access is denied.
  Not applicable to a GCR, but I definitely think founder regions would want this. This way the founder could select certain people for certain duties

Bodobol wrote:I'd suggest disallowing RO's from banjecting the Founder or Delegate (though the Founder could move right back). Other than that, though, I am very excited for this, and I can foresee this becoming a major part of my region. I also like Mahaj's idea for a checklist.

Yes, Mahaj's Checklist is great and RO should not have powers to banject the delegate or founder.

I like Erastide's suggestions. Being from the same region, I can only re-emphasize the points she already made.

The Influence Decay won't apply in UCRs, Erastide.

Cerian Quilor wrote:The Influence Decay won't apply in UCRs, Erastide.

I forgot to state that I am also in The North Pacific. Sorry 'bout that.

I'd just like to point out that while I love the idea of a checklist, Mahaj's list is not comprehensive. I believe that the full list of delegate powers is:

♦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
♦Ability to edit the Welcome Telegram
♦Ability to change the flag
♦Ability to add or remove tags
♦Ability to add a password
♦Ability to send region-wide telegrams
♦No ability

The Black Hat Guy wrote:I'd just like to point out that while I love the idea of a checklist, Mahaj's list is not comprehensive. I believe that the full list of delegate powers is:

♦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
♦Ability to edit the Welcome Telegram
♦Ability to change the flag
♦Ability to add or remove tags
♦Ability to add a password
♦Ability to send region-wide telegrams
♦No ability

Oh gosh, ROs being able to eject will make siege situations bad enough,. definitely ROs should not be able to password the region.

Raiders have to save up large influence to eject nations or impose a password for a reason. Allowing 3-4 "leads" to be able to spend influence simotaneously to destroy the region is a major problem.

Also ROs should be able to eject the delegate if they have the power to eject. There should be a downside or risk if a community is doubling its power to remove nations.

King Topid wrote:]Oh gosh, ROs being able to eject will make siege situations bad enough,. definitely ROs should not be able to password the region.

Raiders have to save up large influence to eject nations or impose a password for a reason. Allowing 3-4 "leads" to be able to spend influence simotaneously to destroy the region is a major problem.

Also ROs should be able to eject the delegate if they have the power to eject. There should be a downside or risk if a community is doubling its power to remove nations.

If RO's cost enough influence to implement, and further use more influence when accessing regional controls, I don't see that as being too large of a problem. The amount of influence would need to be high, yes, but with enough I don't see it as being an issue to make it so that appointing RO's is impractical for defenders.

The Black Hat Guy wrote:

King Topid wrote:]Oh gosh, ROs being able to eject will make siege situations bad enough,. definitely ROs should not be able to password the region.

Raiders have to save up large influence to eject nations or impose a password for a reason. Allowing 3-4 "leads" to be able to spend influence simotaneously to destroy the region is a major problem.

Also ROs should be able to eject the delegate if they have the power to eject. There should be a downside or risk if a community is doubling its power to remove nations.

If RO's cost enough influence to implement, and further use more influence when accessing regional controls, I don't see that as being too large of a problem. The amount of influence would need to be high, yes, but with enough I don't see it as being an issue to make it so that appointing RO's is impractical for defenders.

True, a huge cost would prevent it from being overpowered. I would assume that cost would only be associated with the power to eject/ban/password, which would be weird. But I'd go for it.

What powers Regional Officers can be given.
I would think that a checklist of all the powers a Delegate has would work well. As someone who would likely become an RO myself, I can't see the point of being appointed an essentially toothless position (i.e. Change nothing except give me a title, which is already what happens; people holding non-executive regional positions, such as Minister of Internal Affairs, have no actual ability to monitor any internal affairs game side)

The method for appointing and removing officers, including the length of time it takes to do so, and whether this costs influence.
I would say that officers could be appointed by the founder or an executive Delegate. Appointment and removal would both be immediate, but if the Delegate was doing it that they should have held office (or had executive powers) for a set period of time (say, 3 updates; as this would prevent raiders from immediately removing ROs). If the founder appointed/removed an RO there should be no influence cost (duh), but if a Delegate does so, there should be an influence cost proportionate to the amount of power the Delegate is giving to/removing from the RO.

Whether the influence cost for officers using regional controls is the same as for delegates or different.
The influence cost for banjecting nation's etc. should be double the Delegates cost, IMO, to prevent a rogue RO who cannot be easily removed from destroying a region. And a tiny influence cost for everything else.

Whether there is a limit on the number of officers that can have certain powers (such as to eject and ban).
I'd say two that can eject/ban, five that can change the WFE, accept embassies etc.

Whether officers can access regional controls when the delegate's access is denied.
Yes. Often, the WA Delegate seat is essentially a popularity contest with endorsements as "votes," and is occasionally held by someone consistently inactive, erratic in behavior etc. In this case, the founder may not want the Delegate to be executive. The founder should have the option of giving out limited powers to other nations who are more active/trustworthy if he doesn't want the WAD to have power.

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

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.

Mahaj wrote: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.

If appointing and removing an officer costs half the influence of a password, then founderless nations would not get anything done.

I believe that it should cost nothing to remove an officer, but there should be a progressive amount of influence for each administrative ability.

Such as:
[] Ability to ban nations (Enforcer)
[] Ability to eject nations (Contender)
[] Ability to accept, reject, or apply for embassies (Ambassador)
[] Ability to edit the World Factbook Entry (Duckspeaker)
[] Ability to suppress or unsuppress Regional Message Board posts (Vassal)
[] No ability (0 influence)

Abilities should also be progressive. A nation that can ban can also do everything below banning, though it should take more influence than the delegate.

There should be no influence cost for using regional controls, as some regional governments have influence using duties as their primary duty. Also ROs should not have to be a WA member.