Peacezones -Up for debate

[Topid]

The reason ejections were introduced was to reduce the burden on moderation: we had non-stop complaints that someone in a region was being annoying and spoiling it for everyone else. Then a mod would have to go in and figure out who was doing what and whether it constituted harassment, etc. Once the Delegate could boot troublemakers, that problem went away (into the Rejected Realms).

So I wouldn't want to return to those days, where regions required constant moderator intervention. But if people knew going in that a region was following a particular set of rules (like not being able to eject anyone), that might work.

I don't think the way to pursue this is via a new GCR, though. That just adds more problems we have to solve before we can make it happen, like debates over whether we need another GCR in the first place and if so how to balance it right so it doesn't fail. It'd be better to provide a way to do it with PCRs, as Galiantus suggested, so when you create a region, you have more options, like whether it has a WA Delegate or not. So anyone can create a "Peacezone" if they want, Delegateless & Founderless, and whether anyone else moves there is up to them. It's not us making a grand experiment in democracy, it's you.

More broadly, I am interested in allowing regions to reconfigure themselves constitutionally. I think it would be good if regions could reconfigure to, for example:

• Appoint a nation as Regional Security Officer with only the power to suppress the RMB
• Elevate a nation to Dictator-for-Life, with Founder-like powers
• Abolish the Delegate or Founder positions
• Be ruled by a council of Delegates, all of whom have equal power
• Impose new voting rules, e.g. that only endorsements of residents who have been in the region for longer than X days count, or that non-WA members can vote for Delegate.
• Remove the Delegate's ability to eject or password protect.

Some of these might be good ideas for a region and some might be terrible, but everyone would have to figure out which was which themselves.

Those suggestions would be amazing, especially a change in voting rules!

[Cerian Quilor]

Founders shouldn't be abolishable by regional vote. It would completely undermine the entire way foundership works and the way power exists and distributed in Gameplay regions like Europeia, TNI, Mordor, etc, etc, etc.

The new voting rules you propose would end raiding, allowing non-WA members to vote for delegate would make no sense (it is WA Delegate). Now, an RSO or a Council of Delegates might be interesting, but too many changes to the basic fabric of NS would be bad, I think - NS has survived as long as it has largely by its unique and isosyncratic (and yes, somewhat nonsensical) structures and institutions. Undermining them is very risky.

This is not to say changes arren't warranted, but that we need to avoid too many drastic changes at once. Tweaks like native resistance or some of the other things brought up here are easy to add. But its not as if Influence and the security Council/Liberations were added at the same time. Both were big game changers, and they were spaced well apart. Several of those suggestions, while interesting, are big game changers that can't be safely implemented at once, I think.

[Topid]

Founders shouldn't be abolishable by regional vote. It would completely undermine the entire way foundership works and the way power exists and distributed in Gameplay regions like Europeia, TNI, Mordor, etc, etc, etc.

I do at least agree with this part. Though it should be possible for a founder to give up his founder powers. In other words, I shouldn't have had to refound The United States in order to make it non-exec founder.

[Cerian Quilor]

Founders shouldn't be abolishable by regional vote. It would completely undermine the entire way foundership works and the way power exists and distributed in Gameplay regions like Europeia, TNI, Mordor, etc, etc, etc.

I do at least agree with this part. Though it should be possible for a founder to give up his founder powers. In other words, I shouldn't have had to refound The United States in order to make it non-exec founder.

That I can agree with.

[Galiantus]

The new voting rules you propose would end raiding, allowing non-WA members to vote for delegate would make no sense (it is WA Delegate). Now, an RSO or a Council of Delegates might be interesting, but too many changes to the basic fabric of NS would be bad, I think - NS has survived as long as it has largely by its unique and isosyncratic (and yes, somewhat nonsensical) structures and institutions. Undermining them is very risky.

If we kept the WA the same, but separated it from regional powers and added a way to keep regional powers from being multied, then it would be possible to more fully allow regions what they want, yet still keep raiding possible. I agree it should always be possible to raid, but it is because WA members are the only option for any real power that these ideas [violet] is suggesting are hard to implament without hurting the structure of the WA or raiding.

[Sichuan Pepper]

I very much like the idea of regions being configured to exactly what is wanted / needed for that group. I think it is too early to tell if raiding would be impossible but I imagine it would become a much more political game and tactics used would have to suit each particular target chosen.
This also allows an opt out of the RD and that can only be a good thing.

[Gest]

• Impose new voting rules, e.g. that only endorsements of residents who have been in the region for longer than X days count, or that non-WA members can vote for Delegate.
• Remove the Delegate's ability to eject or paissword protect.

Some of these might be good ideas for a region and some might be terrible, but everyone would have to figure out which was which themselves.

Well that's the end of raiding. It's been a good run. Oh what a brave new world it shall be when GP consists of going into a region and running a voting campaign. Because as we all know politics is the supreme art and anything that is not political must be purged and made political until the day NS is as political and exciting as C-SPAN.

[Sichuan Pepper]

It seems I have more faith in raiders than you do Gest ;p
I am reasonably confident they will find a way. Also I believe those ideas / suggestions of violets are open to discussion and not made of stone.

[Communist Eraser]

I thought we were meant to read violets second paragraph along with the first, I.e.peace zones and other modified regions should be options at creation.

I didn't read it as options to change the region after.

[Galiantus]

I thought we were meant to read violets second paragraph along with the first, I.e.peace zones and other modified regions should be options at creation.

I didn't read it as options to change the region after.

Same here. Once a region has been established, changes to its structure should be extremely hard to make, if ever.

[Cerian Quilor]

It seems I have more faith in raiders than you do Gest ;p
I am reasonably confident they will find a way. Also I believe those ideas / suggestions of violets are open to discussion and not made of stone.

We know how raiding actually works. It won't be 'raiding' if it entirely involves going in and campaigning, etc.

And this may be a political game, but war is politcs by other means, and politics is war by other means. There is no reason to excise Military Gameplay - and this would completely exise military gameplay as military gameplay.

[Astarial]

I don't think the way to pursue this is via a new GCR, though. That just adds more problems we have to solve before we can make it happen, like debates over whether we need another GCR in the first place and if so how to balance it right so it doesn't fail. It'd be better to provide a way to do it with PCRs, as Galiantus suggested, so when you create a region, you have more options, like whether it has a WA Delegate or not. So anyone can create a "Peacezone" if they want, Delegateless & Founderless, and whether anyone else moves there is up to them. It's not us making a grand experiment in democracy, it's you.

On the one hand, I'm just not sure it would work if anybody could create a Peacezone, either at founding or afterward. It sort of seems to defeats the purpose of making people work together - don't like it? Found your own! They'd turn into cliques and in-groups, and would not longer be about diplomacy.

On the other hand, if you set up a GCR peacezone now, it will be a pretty level situation at the start, as anyone interested moves in and starts networking. But come a year from now - someone new wants to join, and they're having to break into an established authority structure and try to make themselves heard over voices who've already got the support of most or all of the region. Possibly the same sort of clique, but now you can't just go make your own.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

More broadly, I am interested in allowing regions to reconfigure themselves constitutionally. I think it would be good if regions could reconfigure to, for example:

• Appoint a nation as Regional Security Officer with only the power to suppress the RMB
• Elevate a nation to Dictator-for-Life, with Founder-like powers
• Abolish the Delegate or Founder positions
• Be ruled by a council of Delegates, all of whom have equal power
• Impose new voting rules, e.g. that only endorsements of residents who have been in the region for longer than X days count, or that non-WA members can vote for Delegate.
• Remove the Delegate's ability to eject or password protect.

Some of these might be good ideas for a region and some might be terrible, but everyone would have to figure out which was which themselves.

We're getting a little carried away with this, aren't we? I mean, if non-WA members can vote for Delegate, how do you protect against cheating? Any idiot with 25 nations would easily be able to elect himself the delegate, and there'd no way for regions to screen the vote themselves, would there? Or do you intend for moderators to run a multi-check on every non-WA voter in a non-WA-vote region, just as they do WA applicants?

[Sichuan Pepper]

All reasonable ideas but I think all being discussed in this thread will end up quite messy. A break down is needed of each proposed idea. I am putting a number next to them to try to reduce confusion. Hope no one minds.

1 .Appoint a nation as Regional Security Officer with only the power to suppress the RMB
I can see this being very helpful to large regions throughout NS. The feeders and sinks as well as regions where the delegate is non-executive.

2.Elevate a nation to Dictator-for-Life, with Founder-like powers
I can see this being a good change as long as it is solely an option the founder of the region can take. If the founder should CTE I would like to see the nation that was given Founder-like powers to then be put into founder position after a reasonable amount of time has passed.

3.Abolish the Delegate or Founder positions
If this were to be implemented I would hope it would be a one time option available only to the founder and that all administration powers would not be available. Also that it would be off limits to recruiters. They would effectively become peacezones

4.Be ruled by a council of Delegates, all of whom have equal power
I am unsure what the shared powers would be in this case. I can also see a lot of problems with implementation of this as there would need to be one WA Delegate only that has any voting rights on WA matters.

5.Impose new voting rules, e.g. that only endorsements of residents who have been in the region for longer than X days count, or that non-WA members can vote for Delegate
This would make things very interesting! I can see how it is very useful as a security measure. If it were set to 3-5 days there would be no update strike invasions that we see now but rather a slow placement of operatives waiting for the chance to take delegate position. There would need to be a realistic limit set on how long. If a region were invaded or couped it could be set for 60 days or some unrealistic goal to stop liberations. Questions about this for me would be:
- Does founder set this and can it be changed after it has been set?
- Would this apply to founder regions only and what happens if the founder CTE?

As to non-WA members being able to vote for delegate. I can see some regions might want that but the danger of puppet wank is high. It would unfair to moderators to even think about this option in my opinion. Naturally if it was implemented I imagine they could not vote on WA matters and I believe administration powers would need to be severely reduced.

6. Remove the Delegate's ability to eject or password protect
We have seen this in the past....lazarus and TRR both I believe did not have those powers. It might be interesting to expand on the idea.

[Galiantus]

All reasonable ideas but I think all being discussed in this thread will end up quite messy. A break down is needed of each proposed idea. I am putting a number next to them to try to reduce confusion. Hope no one minds.

1 .Appoint a nation as Regional Security Officer with only the power to suppress the RMB
I can see this being very helpful to large regions throughout NS. The feeders and sinks as well as regions where the delegate is non-executive.

2.Elevate a nation to Dictator-for-Life, with Founder-like powers
I can see this being a good change as long as it is solely an option the founder of the region can take. If the founder should CTE I would like to see the nation that was given Founder-like powers to then be put into founder position after a reasonable amount of time has passed.

3.Abolish the Delegate or Founder positions
If this were to be implemented I would hope it would be a one time option available only to the founder and that all administration powers would not be available. Also that it would be off limits to recruiters. They would effectively become peacezones

4.Be ruled by a council of Delegates, all of whom have equal power
I am unsure what the shared powers would be in this case. I can also see a lot of problems with implementation of this as there would need to be one WA Delegate only that has any voting rights on WA matters.

5.Impose new voting rules, e.g. that only endorsements of residents who have been in the region for longer than X days count, or that non-WA members can vote for Delegate
This would make things very interesting! I can see how it is very useful as a security measure. If it were set to 3-5 days there would be no update strike invasions that we see now but rather a slow placement of operatives waiting for the chance to take delegate position. There would need to be a realistic limit set on how long. If a region were invaded or couped it could be set for 60 days or some unrealistic goal to stop liberations. Questions about this for me would be:
- Does founder set this and can it be changed after it has been set?
- Would this apply to founder regions only and what happens if the founder CTE?

As to non-WA members being able to vote for delegate. I can see some regions might want that but the danger of puppet wank is high. It would unfair to moderators to even think about this option in my opinion. Naturally if it was implemented I imagine they could not vote on WA matters and I believe administration powers would need to be severely reduced.

6. Remove the Delegate's ability to eject or password protect
We have seen this in the past....lazarus and TRR both I believe did not have those powers. It might be interesting to expand on the idea.

1. I absolutely agree. But I might add that access to the WFE could allow for more active governments.

2. I want to see this implamented, too.

3. It would be interesting if regions could declare independance from the WA, now wouldn't it?

4. Perhaps the most endorsed fixed number or percent of WA members could be on a WA council like that. The one with the most endorsements would be the only one with WAD voting rights, and they would all have equal access to regional controls, restricted only by influence. The problem with a system like this is that it would be very hard to coup.

5. I think it would be interesting to combine both ideas and leave moderation up to the players. Using offsite forums, regional admins could essentially replace the mods in keeping the region secure from "regional multying". The problem I have with this is that it completely restricts tag-raids.

[Cerian Quilor]

You can declare independance from the WA - have an active founder and don't allow any WA nations into your region.

Boom, done.

Moreover, its not that hard to just hand a founder nation off.

[Astarial]

You can declare independance from the WA - have an active founder and don't allow any WA nations into your region.

Boom, done.

Moreover, its not that hard to just hand a founder nation off.

Except sometimes the founder CTEs or is deleted, or simply has RL things to attend to and disappears for a few days. So long as the WAD is the only other one who can deal with WFE/RMB/embassy/etc matters, they can't get done in the meantime. Heck, even in regions that have both, sometimes both are busy. Hence the desire for change.

However, I propose we move discussion of this idea into the correct thread, and allow this one to stay on-topic to discuss Peacezones.

[Trabena]

Warzone Europe has been declared a Peacezone.

[Cerian Quilor]

And the next time someone captures WzE, there goes that.

The idea behind a peacezone will not result in a long-term community, for similar reasons to the reason there isn't much of a WZ community - there isn't an organic community, just a synthetic effort to make something.

[Mousebumples]

Warzone Europe has been declared a Peacezone.

The Regional Admin page does not seem to agree with you.

Anyone can edit the WFE to put that information in there. However, I would think that if that were, the case, the Regional Admin page would not state: The WA Delegate does have administrative powers.

[Communist Eraser]

Oh you guys...

Warzones being a Peacezones is just me having a little fun. Warzone. Peacezone. Geddit, hehe! Even in my announcement thread, I referenced how it'll only work if the whole world decided not to invade me. Which would mean world peace - another twist in the tale.

---

A real peacezone would not have a delegate, or even have a WFE for you to edit. All the one out there are voluntarily - the most notable was Democratia (Non exec delegate, founder - which is not me surprisingly - dedicated to keep it a peacezone).

[Frattastan]

The idea behind a peacezone will not result in a long-term community, for similar reasons to the reason there isn't much of a WZ community - there isn't an organic community, just a synthetic effort to make something.

There isn't a long-term community in the Warzones because game mechanics actively discourage the presence of permanent residents.

[Cerian Quilor]

The idea behind a peacezone will not result in a long-term community, for similar reasons to the reason there isn't much of a WZ community - there isn't an organic community, just a synthetic effort to make something.

There isn't a long-term community in the Warzones because game mechanics actively discourage the presence of permanent residents.

Even under Codger there wasn't really that much of a community.

[Communist Eraser]

But I did get 25 30 endos at one point (remembered mainly cause I wanted to beat Dharma which had around the same at the time). And over a 100 nations.

The community in Airspace is more due to my own flaws a a player/person than anything in a Warzone. Though I'll submit that it takes a certain type of person to stay there forever - someone open minded enough that they can be kicked again and again.... but you can always come back.