[Change #6] Custodian SC proposal

[Sedgistan]

Please see this announcement first.

This Security Council proposal type could be targeted at a nation and a region at the same time, and would appoint the nation as Custodian of the region, giving it access to regional controls. The custodian would have to spend influence in order to use regional controls. However, the custodian would retain their access to regional controls even if outside the region. Custodian proposals could be targeted at any nation, but they could only be appointed custodian of player-created regions. Custodian resolutions would expire automatically after a set amount of time. EDIT: Custodians would not have access to regional controls while the founder of the region remains present.

The intention of this change is to:

• Give significant regions additional protection against invasion.
• Reduce the need for messy re-foundings.
• Offer the opportunity for other political maneuverings.
• Not significantly reduce the number of regions that can be targeted for invasion.

The following aspects in particular need further discussion:

• The amount of time that a Custodian resolution would be valid for prior to expiring.
• Whether the custodian spends influence at the same rate as a delegate or at a different one.
• Whether a region can have multiple custodians at once.
• Whether a nation can be custodian of multiple regions at once.
• Security Council proposal rules issues, especially regarding duplication.

Discussion in this thread is open to everyone. Please use this thread for discussion of this change only - off-topic posts, regional bickering and so on will be dealt with swiftly and punished for as necessary.

[SkyDip]

First question - would custodians, once being designated, be able to be targets by Reformations?

Time-wise, I think this should be a more long-standing thing. That brings into question, however, re-applying this proposal to the same nation once that time expires, and then we run into duplication problems again. I think this would be another good place for a self-repealing resolution, but as I stated in the other thread, I'm not sure how feasible that is in technical terms.

As to whether a region should have multiple custodians, I'd say no. More than that would all but kill invaders chances, if there was any to begin with, and significantly shift the balance of power in the game. I'd also forward that a nation can only be custodian of one region, for the same reasons as above.

[Mallorea and Riva]

The idea of giving nations the ability to spend influence even when not in the delegacy is something that came up in my summit thread along with several others, and it *can* be a good idea if:

1. The price of implementing the changes is severe,
2. the ability to access controls is limited to a short period of time,
3. the number of times a region can be targeted is limited.

Thoughts on those contentions from anyone?

[SkyDip]

The idea of giving nations the ability to spend influence even when not in the delegacy is something that came up in my summit thread along with several others, and it *can* be a good idea if:

1. The price of implementing the changes is severe,
2. the ability to access controls is limited to a short period of time,
3. the number of times a region can be targeted is limited.

Thoughts on those contentions from anyone?

I'd say points 1 and 3 are the most reasonable of the group. Setting the access for a short amount of time will just lead to a mass of repeating proposal going through the SC, which nobody wants.

[Mallorea and Riva]

The idea of giving nations the ability to spend influence even when not in the delegacy is something that came up in my summit thread along with several others, and it *can* be a good idea if:

1. The price of implementing the changes is severe,
2. the ability to access controls is limited to a short period of time,
3. the number of times a region can be targeted is limited.

Thoughts on those contentions from anyone?

I'd say points 1 and 3 are the most reasonable of the group. Setting the access for a short amount of time will just lead to a mass of repeating proposal going through the SC, which nobody wants.

If 3 is implemented, then there won't be a mass of repeating proposals SD

[SkyDip]

I'd say points 1 and 3 are the most reasonable of the group. Setting the access for a short amount of time will just lead to a mass of repeating proposal going through the SC, which nobody wants.

If 3 is implemented, then there won't be a mass of repeating proposals SD

My bad - I merged your second and third points when reading them. I read the third as as only allowing the Custodian to access regional a certain number of times, which I certainly find intriguing. Feels on that idea?

[Mallorea and Riva]

If 3 is implemented, then there won't be a mass of repeating proposals SD

My bad - I merged your second and third points when reading them. I read the third as as only allowing the Custodian to access regional a certain number of times, which I certainly find intriguing. Feels on that idea?

Exactly. If they only get a limited number of cracks at it (it could be set so that accessing the controls and firing off whatever they want to due entirely drains a nation's influence) then it would be both effective, risky, but not overly powered.

[Astarial]

My bad - I merged your second and third points when reading them. I read the third as as only allowing the Custodian to access regional a certain number of times, which I certainly find intriguing. Feels on that idea?

Exactly. If they only get a limited number of cracks at it (it could be set so that accessing the controls and firing off whatever they want to due entirely drains a nation's influence) then it would be both effective, risky, but not overly powered.

But it also allows for the harassment of a particular region - target it enough that it uses up all of its Custodianship resolutions, and then take it for real once it's permanently out of them. If it's limited in use, that use should at least regenerate over time.

I've got a couple questions of my own about the implementation of this. Firstly, what influence would be used by the custodian? Influence within that region, influence within their current region, or some random pull of whatever influence they hold in whatever regions they hold it in? Secondly, how would custodianship square with refounds? Would the custodian retain power once a region ceased to exist, or once it was refounded?

[SkyDip]

An interesting point. It would have to be influence in their region of residence unless there's some sort of hidden extra-home-region influence I'm not aware of, but that doesn't seem very fair to me.

[Mahaj]

It would probably have to be influence in their home region of residence, nothing else makes much sense.

A question I have is: Why can't we have custodians of game created regions? I fail to see why its something that needs to be taken off the table immediately.

[Astarial]

An interesting point. It would have to be influence in their region of residence unless there's some sort of hidden extra-home-region influence I'm not aware of, but that doesn't seem very fair to me.

I think you probably mean that it would have to be influence in the region of which they're appointed custodian, no?

[Mahaj]

An interesting point. It would have to be influence in their region of residence unless there's some sort of hidden extra-home-region influence I'm not aware of, but that doesn't seem very fair to me.

I think you probably mean that it would have to be influence in the region of which they're appointed custodian, no?

Well, no.

Sedge said the custodian could access controls even while not in the targeted region.

[Astarial]

I think you probably mean that it would have to be influence in the region of which they're appointed custodian, no?

Well, no.

Sedge said the custodian could access controls even while not in the targeted region.

Yes, but influence doesn't transfer regions.

If the custodian could use influence from any other region, that would allow Former English Colony to be appointed custodian of Some Random Region With Say Ten Natives and immediately force a refound by banning everyone, simply because her TNP influence is so staggeringly high.

That's absurd. It cannot work out well unless the custodian uses influence from the region they're custodian of - which would effectively limit custodianship to, say, banned long-term natives and former delegates. That's not a bad thing.

[Mahaj]

Well, no.

Sedge said the custodian could access controls even while not in the targeted region.

Yes, but influence doesn't transfer regions.

If the custodian could use influence from any other region, that would allow Former English Colony to be appointed custodian of Some Random Region With Say Ten Natives and immediately force a refound by banning everyone, simply because her TNP influence is so staggeringly high.

That's absurd. It cannot work out well unless the custodian uses influence from the region they're custodian of - which would effectively limit custodianship to, say, banned long-term natives and former delegates. That's not a bad thing.

That's true.

I like this.

[Sedgistan]

I've got a couple questions of my own about the implementation of this. Firstly, what influence would be used by the custodian? Influence within that region, influence within their current region, or some random pull of whatever influence they hold in whatever regions they hold it in? Secondly, how would custodianship square with refounds? Would the custodian retain power once a region ceased to exist, or once it was refounded?

They'd have to use influence gained from the region they're Custodian of - not that from others. Currently SC resolutions are re-applied to re-founded regions. Whether it would apply for these is up for discussion.

I question I have is: Why can't we have custodians of game created regions? I fail to see why its something that needs to be taken off the table immediately.

It doesn't tie in with our objectives for game created regions - making them more dynamic.

[Mahaj]

I question I have is: Why can't we have custodians of game created regions? I fail to see why its something that needs to be taken off the table immediately.

It doesn't tie in with our objectives for game created regions - making them more dynamic.

I think it would make them more dynamic.

here you have an opportunity for more political maneuvering in GCRs, 4 days where a faction fights to get control of a GCR.

[Cerian Quilor]

Overall, seems a decent idea, but custodians should have more expensive use of Regional Controls than a WAD (just tossing out, perhaps x2 more?)

[Tim-Opolis]

Overall, seems a decent idea, but custodians should have more expensive use of Regional Controls than a WAD (just tossing out, perhaps x2 more?)

Seconded.

Personally, my concern comes to it being used against Foundered regions to add custodians into it. The problem there, then lies in the fact that these guys can clear the banlist, change WFE, change the flag, and E/B new nations without any influence cost whatsoever. So yes, I'd definitely like to see a very substantial influence cost for Custodian Actions.

[Sedgistan]

Personally, my concern comes to it being used against Foundered regions to add custodians into it.

That omission is my fault. The intention is for Custodian resolutions to work like Liberations - they're only in effect (so the Custodian only has regional controls access) if the founder is not present.

[Tim-Opolis]

Personally, my concern comes to it being used against Foundered regions to add custodians into it.

That omission is my fault. The intention is for Custodian resolutions to work like Liberations - they're only in effect (so the Custodian only has regional controls access) if the founder is not present.

Oh! That suddenly makes this proposal a lot more favourable, actually!
Thanks for clarifying, Sedge!

[Cerian Quilor]

What about influence cost?

[Tim-Opolis]

What about influence cost?

Seconded.

[Frisbeeteria]

What about influence cost?

Seconded.

What do you think about influence cost? Don't worry about the numbers or the code, just describe what you think the role of influence should be, and perhaps suggestions like "double this" or "half that".

[Tim-Opolis]

Seconded.

What do you think about influence cost? Don't worry about the numbers or the code, just describe what you think the role of influence should be, and perhaps suggestions like "double this" or "half that".

Well, alright!
Personally, I would once again suggest to have it be x2 of what the W.A.D can do regarding Eject/Ban. However, nations without influence in the region should also cost something to eject/ban. I 'd throw around 1-2/2-4 influence points for Eject/Ban respectively. This was it's not too draining, but it prevents a Custodian from being used by the SC in a potential coup (got to think of the worst case scenario). Furthermore, have all of the things that don't cost any influence cost influence (WFE Change, Flag Change, Embassies, Supress, etc). Not a ton, but an amount that would make it difficult for a rogue to be able to suppress RMB posts/constantly update back to a coup WFE/just go against a government of the region at least moderately difficult.

[Mallorea and Riva]

It should be a total drain of all of their influence, assuming they have a large amount to begin with. It should be at least double what the normal del would have to pay, and even if they choose not to spend it all, their influence should get wiped. Why? Because there should be at least some hesitation about employing this, beyond the scope of what they will choose to do.