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.
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.*
*
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.
SquareDisc City wrote:Agreed.Erastide wrote: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.
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.