[Change #6] Custodian SC proposal

[Nephmir]

Why are folks (particularly on the staff, it seems) so resistant to the idea of a transferable Foundership by the residents of a region.

Because every time this idea gets raised a bunch of the raiders raise an outcry about how it will leave them without any targets at all and that "losing the R/D game will destroy NS altogether"... and the game's management apparently falls for both of those [in my opinion, rather exaggerated] claims...

If founders were transferable a Raider can simply gain absolute power by becoming the next in line, and instantly destroy or seize the region with no restrictions.

The custodian proposal would help add restrictions so that Raiders cannot have absolute power, while providing an advantage towards Defenders and natives, as most Gameplay changes do. That was originally why influence was implemented, after all, and the WA Liberation and update variance.

[Enfaru]

Because every time this idea gets raised a bunch of the raiders raise an outcry about how it will leave them without any targets at all and that "losing the R/D game will destroy NS altogether"... and the game's management apparently falls for both of those [in my opinion, rather exaggerated] claims...

If founders were transferable a Raider can simply gain absolute power by becoming the next in line, and instantly destroy or seize the region with no restrictions.

The custodian proposal would help add restrictions so that Raiders cannot have absolute power, while providing an advantage towards Defenders and natives, as most Gameplay changes do. That was originally why influence was implemented, after all, and the WA Liberation and update variance.

If you're foolish enough to nominate a raider as the heir to the throne... then you get what's coming. I don't think anyone is saying that anyone will be allowed to make themselves next inline in the same way that the WA Delegate happens (or at least in a similar way). If it did I'd simply ask that it moves to the next longest standing member of the region and not to whoever says "I want it I want it". So I disagree that if Founders were transferable that a Raider could gain absolute power.

There's no reason why the custodian proposal and transferable founder cannot go hand in hand. They're not mutually exclusive concepts.

[Valrifell]

If founders were transferable a Raider can simply gain absolute power by becoming the next in line, and instantly destroy or seize the region with no restrictions.

The custodian proposal would help add restrictions so that Raiders cannot have absolute power, while providing an advantage towards Defenders and natives, as most Gameplay changes do. That was originally why influence was implemented, after all, and the WA Liberation and update variance.

If you're foolish enough to nominate a raider as the heir to the throne... then you get what's coming. I don't think anyone is saying that anyone will be allowed to make themselves next inline in the same way that the WA Delegate happens (or at least in a similar way). If it did I'd simply ask that it moves to the next longest standing member of the region and not to whoever says "I want it I want it". So I disagree that if Founders were transferable that a Raider could gain absolute power.

There's no reason why the custodian proposal and transferable founder cannot go hand in hand. They're not mutually exclusive concepts.

So, the next longest serving member automatically becomes Founder? So that chain just continues forever too, then, right?
Well, that completely kills Gameplay if that's the case, which was never the point of these discussions.

[Enfaru]

No one said they had to be transferred ad infinitum. Perhaps there could be a limit as to how much time/influence they (the prospective new founder) have had to accumulate in the region to be eligible for it to be transferred to them? What I see this transferable founder being is the last ditch attempt for a community to save itself if the founder cte's for whatever reason. Rather than immediately opening up for the community to be torn to pieces. There are plenty of strong role-playing communities (who wanted nothing to do with the R/D game) that have been torn apart by such a problem, plenty of active members but the founder cte'd. Lets say not only do you have to be a native but you must have an influence rating of over 60?

I'm pretty sure this is off-topic anyway...

[The Stalker]

So I am terribly curious, will this ever come to pass? If I wish really hard would that help?

But seriously, there should be away for old communities to regain prominence without having to move into a new region name. Hell's been founderless since 2003 and will never agree to or risk refounding. I think some regions have earn the right to a new founder.

Hell will likely remain closed till some form of this is created, so I implore the admin / technical staff to not give up on this idea.

[The Stalker]

Another thought might be to require the region be founderless for a certain amount of time. Like being founderless for 2 years I think would be fair, or even 5 to really reduce the number of regions that qualify.

Or even require that they have been raided once or twice before, though that might be harder to verify.

[Frisbeeteria]

Or even require that they have been raided once or twice before, though that might be harder to verify.

Impossible to verify. The game can't tell the difference between a legitimate transfer of Delegacy and a raid.

[The Stalker]

I realize it be impossible for the game itself to moderate, it have to be document my moderation staff to work.

But I think having the region be founderless for like 2 years or something would be a better idea.

I figure, i'd continue sharing ideas on this matter since it's been 2 years since this idea was first introduced as a possibility.

[Sedgistan]

My thinking on this idea has changed somewhat - originally the intention was for a resolution that would expire after a period of time (around 3-6 months) that would temporarily give founderless regions additional security, and improve their ability to manage their affairs, reducing their dependency on their Delegate.

ROs have addressed the latter point, and I feel Custodian proposals would be better served as an improved "opt-out" from invasion for significant founderless regions. Re-founding regions is risky, messy, and erases history - it's not something we'd like to be necessary. I feel Custodians would work better as a permanent appointment (until repealed). However, we don't want to significantly reduce the amount of founderless regions available for the R/D game, nor do we want them to be an easy way of ending an invasion, or to invalidate Liberation proposals. A significantly higher voting threshold - around 75% would help ensure that they are used only for causes with significant community support.

(On a less important note, having them as permanent appointments would also reduce the SC's habit of voting on the same damn thing every few months.)

Thoughts?

[Improving Wordiness]

I would agree with your points Sedge. While 75% is a high mark to achieve it does ensure there is significant support. My concern would be for communities that lack either the ability or have language barriers when drafting such a proposal. We are a critical bunch and SC forum is off putting to new authors. A sub forum in SC for this would be good if possible.
A repeal would have to meet the same bench mark but I feel a repeal process is needed should a nation that has Custodian rights CTE or no longer be active. This gives communities the chance to then propose a new custodian.

[Cresenthia]

Also, it is unclear if the SC could muster that 75%. Maybe 60% would be more reasonable.

[Luna Amore]

Also, it is unclear if the SC could muster that 75%. Maybe 60% would be more reasonable.

Plenty of SC proposals pass around or above 75%. Doesn't seem unattainable.

[The Stalker]

I definitely agree with Sedgistan points, and while I do think 75% is a bit high, I think it's a fair number to ensure a balanced approach.

[Sedgistan]

I would agree with your points Sedge. While 75% is a high mark to achieve it does ensure there is significant support. My concern would be for communities that lack either the ability or have language barriers when drafting such a proposal. We are a critical bunch and SC forum is off putting to new authors. A sub forum in SC for this would be good if possible.

I don't think a sub-forum is likely - we have a general opposition to further sub-dividing forums, and I don't feel it would achieve anything either - anyone who is snarky and hostile in the SC could be snarky and hostile in a sub-forum too. I think things would work similarly to Liberations in that dedicated SCers would often do the authoring and legwork after consulting with the natives. That would address concerns about natives lacking the experience or language skills to write a Custodian proposal themselves.

A repeal would have to meet the same bench mark but I feel a repeal process is needed should a nation that has Custodian rights CTE or no longer be active. This gives communities the chance to then propose a new custodian.

What type of process? I think the selection of a Custodian would need a lot of thought, care and research - you're giving someone near-founder powers virtually permanently. That process should weed out anyone with questionable activity, and really if they disappear, you'd be needing to pass a new proposal.

[Improving Wordiness]

So upon CTE the custodian loses custodian rights? *nods* That makes sense and yes the whole process would need to undertaken again.

EDIT: If custodian rights are not removed upon CTE a repeal process through the security council would be needed. Best to avoid that if possible.

[Sedgistan]

That wasn't actually what I was getting at, though looking back, the last part of my post wasn't clear enough. I was trying to say that if a region has selected an unsuitable Custodian (one that CTEs), they'd need to pass a new Custodian proposal to appoint another - not that the previous would automatically expire. If a nation CTEs, it'd work the same way as a Commend/Condemn - the resolution would remain in effect, and have to be repealed if you want it gone. Having to go through that process would help ensure that the SC scrutinises its decisions more carefully, and learns from its mistakes with previous appointments.

I've also been working on the assumption that a region could have multiple Custodians if the SC sees fit.

[Sichuan Pepper]

I have no argument with that. I also would support it being a permanent appointment rather than a time limited custodian simply to avoid SC clutter as well as factoring in that SC resolutions normally need to present new evidence. With repeated custodian resolutions (due to time out)this would not be possible or would increase the difficulty each time. Alternatively we would see the same Custodian resolution rinsed and resubmitted every 6 moths.

I would limit custodian to one personally as you can only have one founder at any given time unless a nation is shared, however if multiple custodians were to be appointed were you thinking of each appointment being separate proposals?

EDIT: Sorry changed puppets...Wordy here

[Sedgistan]

I would limit custodian to one personally as you can only have one founder at any given time unless a nation is shared, however if multiple custodians were to be appointed were you thinking of each appointment being separate proposals?

Yep, if a region were to be allowed multiple, that would require separate proposals for each nation appointed. Given that we're now looking at a permanent appointment, there's a stronger argument to limiting them to one per region.

[Mousebumples]

What about having only a limited number of Custodians available for the SC to assign rather than requiring a super-majority to pass?

I could see this operating in a few different ways, with a hypothetical limit of Custodians equaling 1% of the current count on WA Delegates in NationStates - currently 13 Custodianships available.

1) 13 Custodian resolutions have passed. The first resolution passed was to protect "Exampleregionia" shortly after Custodians went into effect. When the 14th resolution in the category has passed, Exampleregionia's Custodian protection auto-expires at the same update. Provided that Examplereigonia wants to maintain their Custodian, this could result in some pro-defender groups voting against the 14th proposal for a different region, depending on where their alliances fall. Could lead to some interesting politicking.

2) 13 Custodian resolutions have passed. When a 14th resolution in the category passes, the resolution that passed by the lowest margin (i.e. 55% approval versus 85% approval) auto-expires at the same update. The 14th resolution would need to exceed the margin of passage of the lowest margin resolution currently in effect. This would gradually raise the needed approval margin over time, as more and more of these resolutions are passed. I would hope that it could be coded to clarify on the voting page that "67% margin of approval will be needed for passage. In the event of passage, SCR#999 will have it's effects expire."

3) 13 Custodian resolutions have passed. Additional Custodian proposals cannot be submitted until one of the previous resolutions have been repealed. (this one seems like a nightmare to enforce, and getting complaints on the forum or GHR from players who are wondering why they can't submit a Custodian proposal seems ... annoying.)

4) Something else ... ?

[Improving Wordiness]

I would really like to keep it simple. Permanent placement upon a SC resolution passing of one Custodian.
- Custodian CTE then the SC resolution needs to be repealed and another drafted / submitted / passed in order to put another custodian in place.
- I would also like to see something at the head of the region if a Custodian is appointed similar to where the founder is displayed but listed as Custodian. (not sure if that is possible)

Your suggestions are good Mouse but it means some regions will submit well written proposals that will not pass simply because we withhold votes wanting to keep the 13th, 14th up our sleeve. It also makes if far more difficult for those later submitted. I can also see it becoming confusing for players that are not at all familiar with game play.

[Sedgistan]

Yeah, I'm with Wordy on this - a limit on the global number of Custodians, while having the potential for some great politicking, would be very complex - changes work best if they're simple and easy for everyone to understand.

- I would also like to see something at the head of the region if a Custodian is appointed similar to where the founder is displayed but listed as Custodian. (not sure if that is possible)

Yup, that would definitely be a part of it - they'd need to be displayed prominently, and I'd think at the top of the page as an Executive role.

On a related-ish note, I'm still thinking that if the Founder is present in the region, a Custodian would not have any power - i.e. this is a protection for founderless regions only, not a way of usurping a Founder.

[Improving Wordiness]

Completely agree with you on that. If a founder is present then Custodian should indeed be powerless (unless given RO power)

[Improving Wordiness]

Double post sorry but I did want to clarify that Custodian SC proposal is for UCR's only?
GCR's should not be able to propose a Custodian in my opinion.

[Phydios]

Double post sorry but I did want to clarify that Custodian SC proposal is for UCR's only?
GCR's should not be able to propose a Custodian in my opinion.

That's what it says in the OP.

[Sedgistan]

Yep, that intention remains unchanged.