Customizable Regional Governments

[Galiantus]

I have started this thread to continue the discussion started by [violet] in the thread about Peacezones.

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.

I would like to discuss what sorts of changes someone may want to make to their regional government structure, and how we might make a simple process by which founders - and possibly other governmental offices - may make these changes or build a region to their taste. I would also like to discuss answers to some questions:

• Should the founder always be able to make governmental changes, unless his starting government form prevents that?
• Could we have multiple founders?
• Will the basic mechanics of the WA (where WA members vote for a delegate to represent them) stay the same?
• Could regional tags be associated with certain types of governments, rather than by assignment on the control pannel?
• Should influence cost be set by whoever can change the government, or will the cost simply increase as the number of powers increase?
• Should it be possible to assign certain sections of the WFE to specific government roles?
• Should it be possible to make intraregional governments, sort of like states?
• Do we need a new "regional affairs" organization to prevent multying within certain government structures?
• Would it be neccessary to provide someone with the power to make governmental changes?
• What about an "abolish current government" option?
• Should there be limits on how many nations in a region can be in the government?
• Which positions of the government will be displayed at the top of the region page, or will that be determined by the founder?
• What will be the effects of this change on the R/D game?
• If this feature is added, should current regions have access to it, or only newer ones? And if this is available to founders only, what about the founderless regions?

For an admin:

• Is it even possible for the game to differentiate between votes for different positions?
• Is is possible to create time-limited terms associated with an office?
• Is there a way to differentiate between a shared power and a group power?

I am sure there are many other questions and ideas worth discussing in relation to customizable governments, but these questions are the kinds of questions that will need to be discussed in the implementation of this mechanic.

[Cerian Quilor]

Regions can design whatever government system they wish - they already do.

[Sedgistan]

Regions can design whatever government system they wish - they already do.

The game supporting player developments seems like a good idea. You wouldn't want your region's Foreign Minister to be able to handle in-game embassy requests?

I'm generally supportive of founder/delegate appointed "regional officers", though would be extremely reluctant to see any of them get ejecting/banning/passwording abilities, as that would hinder the invasion game.

[Astarial]

I'm generally supportive of founder/delegate appointed "regional officers", though would be extremely reluctant to see any of them get ejecting/banning/passwording abilities, as that would hinder the invasion game.

Or enhance it - now there would be a benefit to intelligence work again. Trying to raid, but a defender region is getting you down? Infiltrate, become their "security officer" or whatever position that allows you to eject, and make them pay for getting in the way of your raiding. And presumably, regional officers wouldn't require WA status in the way that the delegate does, so you wouldn't need to be tying up your WA in the meantime.

Or you'd just see more targets that don't have these systems being hit.

Should the founder always be able to make governmental changes, unless his starting government form prevents that?

I think it would depend on the changes. Establish a new officer position? Sure. Regional needs can change. Abolish the WAD? No, that should be at-creation only.

Could we have multiple founders?

I dunno, this seems to counteract the basic principle that founder is absolute monarch. Now you've got two of them? What if they get into an argument and go on a banning/unbanning spree? I think one is plenty.

Will the basic mechanics of the WA (where WA members vote for a delegate to represent them) stay the same?

This has been pretty constant, and I see no reason to change it... not to mention, changing who elects the delegate will mess with R/D severely. That might be worth it, or might not, but probably isn't going to happen.

Could regional tags be associated with certain types of governments, rather than by assignment on the control pannel?

Presumably possible. Some are automatically assigned, so you might be able to have a calculation of sorts done, with a certain proportion of officers to residents labeled as "sprawling" or whatnot... Just not sure I see the point of doing so, or the consistency. Some regions have a very high proportion of members-in-government to members-in-region, because they have a higher proportion of active members, while other regions have a huge inactive base.

Should influence cost be set by whoever can change the government, or will the cost simply increase as the number of powers increase?

Influence cost... for what? Taking an action? I'm not sure it should increase as the people who hold the power increase - you might want to set five officers who can all update the WFE, but they shouldn't be penalized for short residence by the cost being higher than any of them can afford.

I'm also concerned about the creation of an oligarchy here - denying new members access to the government simply because they don't have the influence to carry out whatever duties they've been assigned.

Should it be possible to assign certain sections of the WFE to specific government roles?

I don't see why this should be official. A region can organize its WFE for itself - not all will want a subdivided WFE.

Should it be possible to make intraregional governments, sort of like states?

I'd love to see the existing Embassy system fleshed out some more. Alliances, protectorates, that sort of thing.

Do we need a new "regional affairs" organization to prevent multying within certain government structures?

No, I can't see why. In some regions, people hold multiple positions. That's fine, and I think should be allowed.

Would it be neccessary to provide someone with the power to make governmental changes?

You mean to the number of in-game positions? I would assume that would devolve onto the founder, or to an executive-WAD, and should definitely be doable after region creation

What about an "abolish current government" option?

You mean, dismiss everyone from their positions? Perhaps. Depends on how they're set up. If they're appointed by the Founder/WAD? Yes, sure. If they're elected/established by influence? No.

Should there be limits on how many nations in a region can be in the government?

No.

Which positions of the government will be displayed at the top of the region page, or will that be determined by the founder?

Hm, good question. Perhaps a link near the admin link to a "Regional Government" page, which lays out positions and who fills them.

What will be the effects of this change on the R/D game?

Vastly unclear. A lot of regions hit wouldn't be ones that had these things added, so tag raiding would (as per always) be almost untouched. But raiding bigger regions? A lot would depend on the specific manner of how these were implemented.

If this feature is added, should current regions have access to it, or only newer ones? And if this is available to founders only, what about the founderless regions?

Good question. Perhaps restrict the pre-creation features to only new regions, but allow natives of existing ones to petition the mods/admins if they desperately want one of those (like abolishing the position of WAD/Founder).

[Cerian Quilor]

I don't see any reason why I would want to farm out embassy requests to anyone else. But Embassy requests are really the least important of the issues - its the Eject/Ban part that I'm most concerned about. as long as that only remainds in the hand of a Founder, or the Executive WA, then I think some of these other ideas could work.

[Jamie Anumia]

Should the founder always be able to make governmental changes, unless his starting government form prevents that?

I've always believed the founder's power is absolute, unless they give it up. I'm unsure on this one.

Could we have multiple founders?

That doesn't seem like a good idea. If you need someone else as founder, you can always refound or ask the founder to transfer control.

Will the basic mechanics of the WA (where WA members vote for a delegate to represent them) stay the same?

I'd say yes. In the interests of simplicity.

Could regional tags be associated with certain types of governments, rather than by assignment on the control pannel?

I'm not sure I see a need for that. Region tags seem to fulfil such purpose already.

Should influence cost be set by whoever can change the government, or will the cost simply increase as the number of powers increase?

I'm not comfortable with one nation deciding influence cost, so I'd say the latter.

Should it be possible to assign certain sections of the WFE to specific government roles?

Seems unneeded.

Should it be possible to make intraregional governments, sort of like states?

Sure. I rather like that idea.

Do we need a new "regional affairs" organization to prevent multying within certain government structures?

Depends on how your government functions (i.e: off-site or not), that can usually be done by the natives themselves.

Would it be neccessary to provide someone with the power to make governmental changes?

Meh. Unsure, I think it could stay with the delegate/founder.

What about an "abolish current government" option?

Depends on who can use it.

Should there be limits on how many nations in a region can be in the government?

Not at all.

Which positions of the government will be displayed at the top of the region page, or will that be determined by the founder?

Founder and/or exec delegate, I'd say.

What will be the effects of this change on the R/D game?

It could make gameplay intel operations more important.

If this feature is added, should current regions have access to it, or only newer ones? And if this is available to founders only, what about the founderless regions?

I'm uneasy about adding it to founderless regions, I do think it could damage the R/D game, which is something that should be avoided.

[Mousebumples]

Suggestion, as an off-shoot of a previous post by [violet] here:

In Regional Administration, permit Founders (and Exec WAD's) to appoint individual member nations to handle specific tasks/duties within the region. I would suggest having separate "appointment areas" for each of the following:

1. Embassies (creation, approval, closure, or re-ordering)
2. RMB suppression
3. Tag addition/removal
4. Changing the Regional Flag
5. Changing the WFE

I think that the first two are the more "important" duties that should perhaps be shared with other regionmates - especially in some of the larger regions, such as the GCRs, especially in light of the differing recruiting rules for GCRs (re: RMB suppression). However, I could see the potential merits to each, depending on how a regional government is constructed.

The Delegate (or WAD) would also be able to remove these nations from having those rights in the future.

I don't think that any of these tasks require influence to change (as a WAD), so I don't think they should be tied to influence for these new positions either. I don't think that the "additional appointees" should be listed on the main region page, but a short blurb on the Regional Admin page (that anyone could view) would be useful, I think.

For example:

Monkey Island is administered by:

• The Blue Serenity of Awesome Islands (Founder)

The Founder has not granted the WA Delegate (Mousebumples) administrative power.

The ability to modify regional settings, as well as eject and ban nations, is automatically granted to Founders. The same powers also belong to the WA Delegate, unless the Founder has disabled WA Delegate access and is present within the region.

Embassy administrative powers have additionally been granted to:

• Mousebumples
• Ziggie Valencourt

RMB suppressive powers have additionally been granted to:

• Mousebumples
• Gourmet With Genki

Possible Concerns: Increased problems with regards to tag-raiding. Temporary WA Delegates could now appoint a puppet of theirs (within that region) to suppress the RMB and/or change embassies. Now, Defenders would need to liberate/take the WAD position not only to clear the WFE of whatever message is put up there, but also to remove those powers from such non-natives.

However, a potentially helpful workaround would be to require a semi-decent chunk of influence to appoint such minor admins by the WAD. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that tag raiders usually have next to no influence in a given region, so they likely wouldn't have the power to do such things. Of course, even that could result in a change in how raids are conducted with a differing aim/goal of such raids.

[Astarial]

Possible Concerns: Increased problems with regards to tag-raiding. Temporary WA Delegates could now appoint a puppet of theirs (within that region) to suppress the RMB and/or change embassies. Now, Defenders would need to liberate/take the WAD position not only to clear the WFE of whatever message is put up there, but also to remove those powers from such non-natives.

However, a potentially helpful workaround would be to require a semi-decent chunk of influence to appoint such minor admins by the WAD. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that tag raiders usually have next to no influence in a given region, so they likely wouldn't have the power to do such things. Of course, even that could result in a change in how raids are conducted with a differing aim/goal of such raids.

Hmm, I like that workaround. If they want to keep tagging the way they have been, it's untouched, but if they want to potentially do more damage with an appointed officer, they'd have to take and hold the region, and then defenders would have to take and hold the region to remove the officer. Heck, defenders could institute a puppet of their own on frequently-raided, no-native-delegate regions, just to mess with incoming raiders.

And you're correct, tagging generally gives miniscule amounts of influence - from my impression, the raider lead will have only a couple endorsements, and will be out of the delegacy by the following update.

[Cerian Quilor]

As long as the ability to eject/ban/password remains soley in the WAD and Founder, I think we could certainly have a little fun with this idea. I can see influence required to name people to these posts if you are WAD, but what about firing them?

[Galiantus]

Here's what I am getting:

1. Ejecting, banning, and passwoding are all war/police powers that must stay the same to keep the R/D game the same.

2. All other powers are political/moderation powers, which may be messed around with to a region's taste.

I might suggest two possible ways to allow more flexibility, yet leave raiding mostly untouched. First of all, maybe founderless regions would, once they went founderless, become unable to assign the war powers to anyone other than the WAD. So foundered regions would be able to get whatever structure they want without effecting the R/D game, and founderless regions would be just as open to invasion. Second of all, the positions with war powers in founderless regions could be directly tied to a specific nation being the WAD. If that delegate is ever removed from office, everyone else with access to the war powers would loose that access, and it would cost influence to assign new people to those positions.

[Mousebumples]

First of all, maybe founderless regions would, once they went founderless, become unable to assign the war powers to anyone other than the WAD. So foundered regions would be able to get whatever structure they want without effecting the R/D game, and founderless regions would be just as open to invasion.

The problem is, I think the BIGGEST regions in the game (i.e. the GCRs which are, obviously, founderless) would be some of the regions that have such large regional governments where such positions would be desirable and used as described above.

Your latter idea is more feasible, but I'm not sure if that's the right answer either.

[Galiantus]

First of all, maybe founderless regions would, once they went founderless, become unable to assign the war powers to anyone other than the WAD. So foundered regions would be able to get whatever structure they want without effecting the R/D game, and founderless regions would be just as open to invasion.

The problem is, I think the BIGGEST regions in the game (i.e. the GCRs which are, obviously, founderless) would be some of the regions that have such large regional governments where such positions would be desirable and used as described above.

Your latter idea is more feasible, but I'm not sure if that's the right answer either.

Well that depends on whether we want raiding to continue to work or not. I would rather that we separate the war/region structure from the WA structure, but if we can't do that I want to see regional governments at least mirror what players organize on their forums. Similarly, we need to realize that raiding is a part of the NS world that makes NS unique to any other game. If we implament this feature we must also leave the door open for raiding and intriuge to continue existing. Both of these ideas accomplish this, but perhaps you are right about the larger regions.

A third idea could be that, based on certain regional statistics, the region could gain more "Perminant War Offices". These statistics I speak of could be regional population, regional influence, the number of WA/power nations in the region, the number of nations in the regional government, the number of nations that have been active in the last X days, etc. What is essential is that the larger, more influential, more active regions naturally have more protection, whether or not they are founderless.

Also, perhaps we could add on to my second idea so that, much like embassies, it takes a certain number of updates after a delegate has taken the region before offices with war powers are removed from office. Perhaps the immedate effect of a WA delegate replacing an older delegate could also include a temporary "shockwave" to communications, preventing regional officers from being able to change the WFE or supress/unsupress RMB posts for a day or so. This would preserve tag-raids for at least one update, and would allow for more interesting battles for regional control.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Regions can design whatever government system they wish - they already do.

The game supporting player developments seems like a good idea. You wouldn't want your region's Foreign Minister to be able to handle in-game embassy requests?

I'm generally supportive of founder/delegate appointed "regional officers", though would be extremely reluctant to see any of them get ejecting/banning/passwording abilities, as that would hinder the invasion game.

I'm in agreement with this, despite Asta's comments to the contrary. The Delegate is the ultimate executive authority in a founderless region, if you start piecing out the power of ejection/banning/passwording you make raiding exponentially more difficult. That having been said, things like embassies and whatnot could be interesting.

[Galiantus]

The game supporting player developments seems like a good idea. You wouldn't want your region's Foreign Minister to be able to handle in-game embassy requests?

I'm generally supportive of founder/delegate appointed "regional officers", though would be extremely reluctant to see any of them get ejecting/banning/passwording abilities, as that would hinder the invasion game.

I'm in agreement with this, despite Asta's comments to the contrary. The Delegate is the ultimate executive authority in a founderless region, if you start piecing out the power of ejection/banning/passwording you make raiding exponentially more difficult. That having been said, things like embassies and whatnot could be interesting.

Again, we could preserve raiding in essentially the same form as right now by removing those powers from regional offices with those powers whenever the WAD is replaced. And if you want to preserve tag-raiding, you could do something similar, but temporary, to those with power to change the WFE.

[United Guildomes]

I'm generally supportive of founder/delegate appointed "regional officers", though would be extremely reluctant to see any of them get ejecting/banning/passwording abilities, as that would hinder the invasion game.

Or enhance it - now there would be a benefit to intelligence work again. Trying to raid, but a defender region is getting you down? Infiltrate, become their "security officer" or whatever position that allows you to eject, and make them pay for getting in the way of your raiding. And presumably, regional officers wouldn't require WA status in the way that the delegate does, so you wouldn't need to be tying up your WA in the meantime.

Or you'd just see more targets that don't have these systems being hit.

Should the founder always be able to make governmental changes, unless his starting government form prevents that?

I think it would depend on the changes. Establish a new officer position? Sure. Regional needs can change. Abolish the WAD? No, that should be at-creation only.

Could we have multiple founders?

I dunno, this seems to counteract the basic principle that founder is absolute monarch. Now you've got two of them? What if they get into an argument and go on a banning/unbanning spree? I think one is plenty.

Will the basic mechanics of the WA (where WA members vote for a delegate to represent them) stay the same?

This has been pretty constant, and I see no reason to change it... not to mention, changing who elects the delegate will mess with R/D severely. That might be worth it, or might not, but probably isn't going to happen.

Could regional tags be associated with certain types of governments, rather than by assignment on the control pannel?

Presumably possible. Some are automatically assigned, so you might be able to have a calculation of sorts done, with a certain proportion of officers to residents labeled as "sprawling" or whatnot... Just not sure I see the point of doing so, or the consistency. Some regions have a very high proportion of members-in-government to members-in-region, because they have a higher proportion of active members, while other regions have a huge inactive base.

Should influence cost be set by whoever can change the government, or will the cost simply increase as the number of powers increase?

Influence cost... for what? Taking an action? I'm not sure it should increase as the people who hold the power increase - you might want to set five officers who can all update the WFE, but they shouldn't be penalized for short residence by the cost being higher than any of them can afford.

I'm also concerned about the creation of an oligarchy here - denying new members access to the government simply because they don't have the influence to carry out whatever duties they've been assigned.

Should it be possible to assign certain sections of the WFE to specific government roles?

I don't see why this should be official. A region can organize its WFE for itself - not all will want a subdivided WFE.

Should it be possible to make intraregional governments, sort of like states?

I'd love to see the existing Embassy system fleshed out some more. Alliances, protectorates, that sort of thing.

Do we need a new "regional affairs" organization to prevent multying within certain government structures?

No, I can't see why. In some regions, people hold multiple positions. That's fine, and I think should be allowed.

Would it be neccessary to provide someone with the power to make governmental changes?

You mean to the number of in-game positions? I would assume that would devolve onto the founder, or to an executive-WAD, and should definitely be doable after region creation

What about an "abolish current government" option?

You mean, dismiss everyone from their positions? Perhaps. Depends on how they're set up. If they're appointed by the Founder/WAD? Yes, sure. If they're elected/established by influence? No.

Should there be limits on how many nations in a region can be in the government?

No.

Which positions of the government will be displayed at the top of the region page, or will that be determined by the founder?

Hm, good question. Perhaps a link near the admin link to a "Regional Government" page, which lays out positions and who fills them.

What will be the effects of this change on the R/D game?

Vastly unclear. A lot of regions hit wouldn't be ones that had these things added, so tag raiding would (as per always) be almost untouched. But raiding bigger regions? A lot would depend on the specific manner of how these were implemented.

If this feature is added, should current regions have access to it, or only newer ones? And if this is available to founders only, what about the founderless regions?

Good question. Perhaps restrict the pre-creation features to only new regions, but allow natives of existing ones to petition the mods/admins if they desperately want one of those (like abolishing the position of WAD/Founder).

This.
I now establish the Abastel NationStates Betterment Party

[Christian Democrats]

I would like to see a CHANGE FOUNDER feature that would allow a founder to hand off his position to another player.

Of course, that other player would have to accept for the change to take effect.

[Galiantus]

I would like to see a CHANGE FOUNDER feature that would allow a founder to hand off his position to another player.

Of course, that other player would have to accept for the change to take effect.

[violet] said something about this in another thread, and apperantly that isn't possible.

[Astarial]

I would like to see a CHANGE FOUNDER feature that would allow a founder to hand off his position to another player.

Of course, that other player would have to accept for the change to take effect.

Why would this be better than what many regions already do - hand the password of the founder nation to someone else?

[Christian Democrats]

I would like to see a CHANGE FOUNDER feature that would allow a founder to hand off his position to another player.

Of course, that other player would have to accept for the change to take effect.

Why would this be better than what many regions already do - hand the password of the founder nation to someone else?

Maybe the player wishes to maintain control of the founder nation. Maybe it is his main nation.

What if a player wants to change the founder from being one of his nations to being one of his other nations?

[Cerian Quilor]

Why would this be better than what many regions already do - hand the password of the founder nation to someone else?

Maybe the player wishes to maintain control of the founder nation. Maybe it is his main nation.

What if a player wants to change the founder from being one of his nations to being one of his other nations?

Too bad.

[Astarial]

Maybe the player wishes to maintain control of the founder nation. Maybe it is his main nation.

What if a player wants to change the founder from being one of his nations to being one of his other nations?

Too bad.

I am finding myself in a rare moment of agreement with CQ.

I am not sure why the idea of reassigning founder just because someone changes their mind about foundership rubs me entirely the wrong way, but it does. Perhaps because it's somewhat parallel to the nation name issue - you don't get to change your nation name just because you've made a typo, and you don't get to change the founder of a region just because you don't want to hand over your main.

If Galiantus is correct, and [violet] has vetoed this idea already, then the point is moot. Interesting as a thought exercise though, perhaps.

[Slevilia]

I have started this thread to continue the discussion started by [violet] in the thread about Peacezones.

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.

I would like to discuss what sorts of changes someone may want to make to their regional government structure, and how we might make a simple process by which founders - and possibly other governmental offices - may make these changes or build a region to their taste. I would also like to discuss answers to some questions:

• Should the founder always be able to make governmental changes, unless his starting government form prevents that?
• Could we have multiple founders?
• Will the basic mechanics of the WA (where WA members vote for a delegate to represent them) stay the same?
• Could regional tags be associated with certain types of governments, rather than by assignment on the control pannel?
• Should influence cost be set by whoever can change the government, or will the cost simply increase as the number of powers increase?
• Should it be possible to assign certain sections of the WFE to specific government roles?
• Should it be possible to make intraregional governments, sort of like states?
• Do we need a new "regional affairs" organization to prevent multying within certain government structures?
• Would it be neccessary to provide someone with the power to make governmental changes?
• What about an "abolish current government" option?
• Should there be limits on how many nations in a region can be in the government?
• Which positions of the government will be displayed at the top of the region page, or will that be determined by the founder?
• What will be the effects of this change on the R/D game?
• If this feature is added, should current regions have access to it, or only newer ones? And if this is available to founders only, what about the founderless regions?

For an admin:

• Is it even possible for the game to differentiate between votes for different positions?
• Is is possible to create time-limited terms associated with an office?
• Is there a way to differentiate between a shared power and a group power?

I am sure there are many other questions and ideas worth discussing in relation to customizable governments, but these questions are the kinds of questions that will need to be discussed in the implementation of this mechanic.

If I'm the founder then how do I make myself executive

[Gandoor]

I have started this thread to continue the discussion started by [violet] in the thread about Peacezones.

I would like to discuss what sorts of changes someone may want to make to their regional government structure, and how we might make a simple process by which founders - and possibly other governmental offices - may make these changes or build a region to their taste. I would also like to discuss answers to some questions:

• Should the founder always be able to make governmental changes, unless his starting government form prevents that?
• Could we have multiple founders?
• Will the basic mechanics of the WA (where WA members vote for a delegate to represent them) stay the same?
• Could regional tags be associated with certain types of governments, rather than by assignment on the control pannel?
• Should influence cost be set by whoever can change the government, or will the cost simply increase as the number of powers increase?
• Should it be possible to assign certain sections of the WFE to specific government roles?
• Should it be possible to make intraregional governments, sort of like states?
• Do we need a new "regional affairs" organization to prevent multying within certain government structures?
• Would it be neccessary to provide someone with the power to make governmental changes?
• What about an "abolish current government" option?
• Should there be limits on how many nations in a region can be in the government?
• Which positions of the government will be displayed at the top of the region page, or will that be determined by the founder?
• What will be the effects of this change on the R/D game?
• If this feature is added, should current regions have access to it, or only newer ones? And if this is available to founders only, what about the founderless regions?

For an admin:

• Is it even possible for the game to differentiate between votes for different positions?
• Is is possible to create time-limited terms associated with an office?
• Is there a way to differentiate between a shared power and a group power?

I am sure there are many other questions and ideas worth discussing in relation to customizable governments, but these questions are the kinds of questions that will need to be discussed in the implementation of this mechanic.

If I'm the founder then how do I make myself executive

1. I'm not saying this as a mod (because I'm obviously not one, just saying it as a player) but you shouldn't gravedig threads that are turning 10 years old this year.

2. You can't. The option to make it so the regional founder doesn't have Executive authority is a permanent option that you cannot change once you've created your region, sorry.