Founder Succession: A Better Solution [GP/RP Proposal]

[Bears Armed]

As I've already pointed out, there's no reason why this should "destroy" R/D because if the R/D crowd think that there aren't enough regions left open for them to fight over then they are -- and would, under this proposal, remain -- perfectly free to create new regions themselves for that purpose. Inn fact the rules would even let them set those regions up with non-executive founders, so that the players involved couldn't subsequently change their minds and take those regions out of the battlefield...

[Lun Noir]

I agree completely with Mousebumples on the risks. I don't want to see founderless regions stop forming, nor to 'cure' any past founderless regions. Don't intend to see R/D disappear, either.

The main reason I am interested in the idea of this proposal, however, is because I strongly believe that allowing a region to live beyond its founding nation is an important factor in the viability of long-term UCRs, and I find the transfer of that role (by some means/ with some risk) preferable to promoting account sharing.

If it were a 'next update' solution, the region would still go founderless if the founder simply went totally MIA or were deleted for some other reason. This would perhaps be more accepted than assigning a successor, since it would not act as a passive 'protection', but would only take effect through an active and immediate decision. It still resolves the underlying problem of allowing a founder to move on from NS without disrupting the regional community they founded.

[Evil Wolf]

they are -- and would, under this proposal, remain -- perfectly free to create new regions themselves for that purpose.

Sure, sure. We're also perfectly free to join other games, or set up a separately Bizzaro Nationstates where all regions have the slight, but possible, risk of being invaded, just like we see now, today.

We're perfectly capable of doing a lot of silly things. Doesn't mean we should.

[Whamabama]

And if there is no activity in the region, then why would a founder appoint a successor??? Founders who have an active region, but wish to move on, can have a true ability to do so under this proposal. Plus, raiders are already raiding foundered regions now too, thanks to the Black Riders. What are you so against?

Even then, hell. If this idea is causing such a problem, maybe we should make a "founder nation swapping service" for people to go and ask for a puppet nation to founder with so several members of the regions can be the founder, and post the service everywhere! I mean, if having this option is such a problem, surely you would support that instead of my proposal.

Why would a founder in an active, or inactive region not appoint a successor? If there is a blank to be filled in, there is a good chance the founder will fill it.

I am aware the black riders are "tagging" foundered regions. They are doing it because they like tag raiding, I don't tag raid, I don't clean up tag raids, I have no interest in tag raids. So why would I be interested in a proposal that eliminates the R/D part I like, because it still allows a part of R/D I am not interested in?

[Whamabama]

As I've already pointed out, there's no reason why this should "destroy" R/D because if the R/D crowd think that there aren't enough regions left open for them to fight over then they are -- and would, under this proposal, remain -- perfectly free to create new regions themselves for that purpose. Inn fact the rules would even let them set those regions up with non-executive founders, so that the players involved couldn't subsequently change their minds and take those regions out of the battlefield...

Yes because creating a region so you can later raid your own region is what motivates raiders............Kinda like the warzones idea kept raiders from raiding UCRs.

[JURISDICTIONS]

OP is Updated.

[[violet]]

if the R/D crowd think that there aren't enough regions left open for them to fight over then they are -- and would, under this proposal, remain -- perfectly free to create new regions themselves for that purpose

No-one wants to opt-in to having their own region invaded, not even invaders. Imagine that the entire NS world is comprised of people who want to play the invasion game, then we give each region the power to make themselves invulnerable to invasion. Everyone would use that. There would be no reason not to. They'd wish other regions didn't use it, but they'd use it themselves. And that would be the end of R/D.

[Grenartia]

if the R/D crowd think that there aren't enough regions left open for them to fight over then they are -- and would, under this proposal, remain -- perfectly free to create new regions themselves for that purpose

No-one wants to opt-in to having their own region invaded, not even invaders. Imagine that the entire NS world is comprised of people who want to play the invasion game, then we give each region the power to make themselves invulnerable to invasion. Everyone would use that. There would be no reason not to. They'd wish other regions didn't use it, but they'd use it themselves. And that would be the end of R/D.

Which is like saying that nobody would opt-in to RP. But yet, RP is alive and kicking.

[The Angry Clown]

if the R/D crowd think that there aren't enough regions left open for them to fight over then they are -- and would, under this proposal, remain -- perfectly free to create new regions themselves for that purpose

No-one wants to opt-in to having their own region invaded, not even invaders. Imagine that the entire NS world is comprised of people who want to play the invasion game, then we give each region the power to make themselves invulnerable to invasion. Everyone would use that. There would be no reason not to. They'd wish other regions didn't use it, but they'd use it themselves. And that would be the end of R/D.

I agree. No one would want their "home regions" invaded. But Warzones would begin to serve a real function; we could have more of them. And quite a few players would begin to create regions especially for R/D, even if they are initially puppet regions. (Law of supply and demand...)

I'm not saying this is the ideal solution, I'm just saying that the argument posted by holy [violet] doesn't necessarily holdtrue.

[-Land-]

No-one wants to opt-in to having their own region invaded, not even invaders

Then make it a neccessity. If you want to raid, or defend or liberate, then you *have* to opt-in. Your founder becomes non-exec, and your delegate becomes executive (both in your home region and any outposts/jump points you use). We can do away with the whole proxy war thing and actually have an R/D game, not an R/D/N game.

[Andacantra]

And thus we return straight back to being forced to define when a region raids or defends.

[Esternial]

if the R/D crowd think that there aren't enough regions left open for them to fight over then they are -- and would, under this proposal, remain -- perfectly free to create new regions themselves for that purpose

No-one wants to opt-in to having their own region invaded, not even invaders. Imagine that the entire NS world is comprised of people who want to play the invasion game, then we give each region the power to make themselves invulnerable to invasion. Everyone would use that. There would be no reason not to. They'd wish other regions didn't use it, but they'd use it themselves. And that would be the end of R/D.

Seems odd to make a game so dependent on people who don't want to play it.

That's a major flaw we should seek to remedy, [violet].


As for the discussion, how about we simply allow Founders to actively pass on their powers rather than use a system where their executive access is passively passed on when they CTE?

[The Dark Star Republic]

if the R/D crowd think that there aren't enough regions left open for them to fight over then they are -- and would, under this proposal, remain -- perfectly free to create new regions themselves for that purpose

No-one wants to opt-in to having their own region invaded, not even invaders. Imagine that the entire NS world is comprised of people who want to play the invasion game, then we give each region the power to make themselves invulnerable to invasion. Everyone would use that. There would be no reason not to. They'd wish other regions didn't use it, but they'd use it themselves. And that would be the end of R/D.

NationStates: the game where consent is a concept the admins aren't even willing to consider.

I agree. No one would want their "home regions" invaded. But Warzones would begin to serve a real function; we could have more of them. And quite a few players would begin to create regions especially for R/D, even if they are initially puppet regions. (Law of supply and demand...)

That's an interesting argument. Do other people think this might spur activity in Warzones, or is that a forlorn hope?

[Lun Noir]

As for the discussion, how about we simply allow Founders to actively pass on their powers rather than use a system where their executive access is passively passed on when they CTE?

Yes, that idea was suggested by Mousebumples and is now listed (I believe) as 'optional implementation 4'.

I actually quite like this notion, since it is no longer just a checkbox. It should alleviate some of the concerns about stopping founderless regions being created, since if a founder just up and leaves NS, the region will still lapse into a founderless state.

They would need to log in and take an action to grant the founder position to someone else, which would take place during the following update.

No-one wants to opt-in to having their own region invaded, not even invaders

Then make it a neccessity. If you want to raid, or defend or liberate, then you *have* to opt-in. Your founder becomes non-exec, and your delegate becomes executive (both in your home region and any outposts/jump points you use). We can do away with the whole proxy war thing and actually have an R/D game, not an R/D/N game.

I like the direction of your thinking... however, this would not exactly be plausible, since many switch nations used during raiding or defending don't really have a 'home region', and since jump point regions can be created and dropped more or less on demand. Any R/D faction who still wanted their home region to be safe would simply not stage raids or defenses directly from it.

Also, it's getting a bit off topic.

[Mousebumples]

Do other people think this might spur activity in Warzones, or is that a forlorn hope?

Probably a forlorn hope. However, AMoM did start up this thread a few years back with some ideas to try to reinvigorate interest in the warzones. If anyone has other suggestions to offer in there, that thread may also be worth reviving.

(I do love that the gravedigging rules are much more lax in Tech. )

[Whamabama]

I agree. No one would want their "home regions" invaded. But Warzones would begin to serve a real function; we could have more of them. And quite a few players would begin to create regions especially for R/D, even if they are initially puppet regions. (Law of supply and demand...)

I'm not saying this is the ideal solution, I'm just saying that the argument posted by holy [violet] doesn't necessarily holdtrue.

I would suggest you re-read Violets post. nobody is going to create a region to be invaded. Warzones, while I can understand the reasonings, well that idea didn't work, raiders weren't interested in raiding them, and defenders weren't interested in defending them. Making more of them will mean more regions nobody is interested in.

[[violet]]

Seems odd to make a game so dependent on people who don't want to play it.

Quite a few people have missed the point of my post, so let me try again. I will use Halo as an example. Let's assume there are a lot of people who want to play multiplayer Halo. What this means is they want to run around and try to kill each other as much as possible and die as infrequently as possible. That's the game. They want to play that game. Now let's introduce a checkbox that allows Halo players to be permanently invulnerable. What happens? Everyone uses that checkbox. And no-one can kill each other, and there is no more game.

Is this proof that no-one really wanted to play Halo after all? No, it's not. It's just a bad feature, because it removed something essential from the game.

We should not call something an "opt-out" feature if it's going to fundamentally alter the landscape for all players, including those who wish to opt-in. That's a misrepresentation of what it is. A true opt-out feature would only be used by those people who don't wish to participate in the war game at all, not just those who don't want to be shot. Because the latter is everyone.

[Evil Wolf]

Then make it a neccessity. If you want to raid, or defend or liberate, then you *have* to opt-in. Your founder becomes non-exec, and your delegate becomes executive (both in your home region and any outposts/jump points you use). We can do away with the whole proxy war thing and actually have an R/D game, not an R/D/N game.

In that case, personally, I would just move my entire operation to a friendly or neutral Feeder, maybe even The Rejected Realms where we can't be banned. In the case of a feeder unwilling to ban us, especially a feeder that holds true to its laws like TNP, the only way to strike back would be to topple an innocent government. We'd be able to raid just fine, with minimum hassle.

There will always be an entirely legal way around any restrictions, outside of an outright ban, aimed at putting a stop to raiding or making our task more difficult. Part of the fun is learning how to adapt and overcome to new challenges and changing environments. Unfortunately for you, Land, my ability to adapt would probably not result in the deterrent against joining the R/D game that you're looking for.

[-Land-]

I like the direction of your thinking... however, this would not exactly be plausible, since many switch nations used during raiding or defending don't really have a 'home region', and since jump point regions can be created and dropped more or less on demand. Any R/D faction who still wanted their home region to be safe would simply not stage raids or defenses directly from it.

Also, it's getting a bit off topic.

Most, if not all, raiders have a home region. Similarly with defenders, the only exception being UDL, who has no home region, but whose members do. Also, most groups already don't use their home region as a jump point (due to update).

Risking the home region is a necessity if we are to remove those nations who don't want to play R/D, as those home regions now become the 'valued prizes'. If TITO wants to defend, we have to risk XKI. If TBR wants to raid, they have to risk their home region, along with whichever jump points we happen to be using at the time.

Sorry for getting off topic, my inbox is open if you want to continue discussing this; and it's also open to any 'opt-in' R/D ideas.

-snip-

Yes, but as you point out. People play Halo expecting to kill or be killed. That is not the case with NS. R/D is made up of a very small, but very loud, group of players, and people do not join NS expecting to be raided or defended.

[[violet]]

Yes, but as you point out. People play Halo expecting to kill or be killed. That is not the case with NS. R/D is made up of a very small, but very loud, group of players, and people do not join NS expecting to be raided or defended.

If you want to argue that R/D should be abolished altogether, you can do that, but it's a different topic and not the subject of this thread.

If you want to argue that there should be a better method of allowing players to opt-out of the NS invasion game, allowing R/D and RP to peacefully co-exist, then you will find much support, but you need to be aware that allowing regions to make themselves invulnerable is not a balanced solution.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Seems odd to make a game so dependent on people who don't want to play it.

Quite a few people have missed the point of my post, so let me try again. I will use Halo as an example. Let's assume there are a lot of people who want to play multiplayer Halo. What this means is they want to run around and try to kill each other as much as possible and die as infrequently as possible. That's the game. They want to play that game. Now let's introduce a checkbox that allows Halo players to be permanently invulnerable. What happens? Everyone uses that checkbox. And no-one can kill each other, and there is no more game.

Is this proof that no-one really wanted to play Halo after all? No, it's not. It's just a bad feature, because it removed something essential from the game.

We should not call something an "opt-out" feature if it's going to fundamentally alter the landscape for all players, including those who wish to opt-in. That's a misrepresentation of what it is. A true opt-out feature would only be used by those people who don't wish to participate in the war game at all, not just those who don't want to be shot. Because the latter is everyone.

To use your argument, this entire thread came about because of people who didn't realize they were playing Halo. They were playing Madden NFL or Microsoft Flight Sim - and then suddenly a Halo character turned up and shot them. You've already made it clear you won't ban the Halo game, but all that's being asked for here is a means to protect those uninterested in that game from having it damage theirs.

[[violet]]

all that's being asked for here is a means to protect those uninterested in that game from having it damage theirs.

Of course, and notice that to a large extent, that's been implemented. Invaders can no longer eject whoever they like. They can't throw up passwords. They can't invade regions that have been passworded. They can't retain control of the Delegacy in regions with active Founders. They can't do anything with the Delegacy in regions that have made that office non-executive. They can't retain passwords even if they eventually get them up if the WA Security Council doesn't want them to. These are all changes we've made to protect regions from damage.

Now, I understand perfectly that what remains is still too much for some. But if you're presenting an idea, understand its implications. It's not appropriate to argue for "balance" or "opt-out" if what you're actually proposing is something that will effectively eliminate R/D for everyone, even those people who want to play it. That's the point. Would your idea eliminate R/D even if all NS players were invaders? Yes? Then that's not balance and it's not opt-out. It's a "no R/D" idea.

[Lun Noir]

.. but all that's being asked for here is a means to protect those uninterested in that game from having it damage theirs.

Actually, that's not quite true.

This proposal is not about establishing any new protections against raiding.

It is solely about resolving the issue of regional continuity / sustainability beyond the founding account. This does not establish any new safeguards against raids or invasions than exist today, it just allows a regional community to maintain its foundered status after the original founder wishes to move on from NS, which there should be some way to do besides re-founding or giving the founding nation's account away.

[The Dark Star Republic]

all that's being asked for here is a means to protect those uninterested in that game from having it damage theirs.

Of course, and notice that to a large extent, that's been implemented. Invaders can no longer eject whoever they like. They can't throw up passwords. They can't invade regions that have been passworded. They can't retain control of the Delegacy in regions with active Founders. They can't do anything with the Delegacy in regions that have made that office non-executive. They can't retain passwords even if they eventually get them up if the WA Security Council doesn't want them to. These are all changes we've made to protect regions from damage.

Now, I understand perfectly that what remains is still too much for some. But if you're presenting an idea, understand its implications. It's not appropriate to argue for "balance" or "opt-out" if what you're actually proposing is something that will effectively eliminate R/D for everyone, even those people who want to play it. That's the point. Would your idea eliminate R/D even if all NS players were invaders? Yes? Then that's not balance and it's not opt-out. It's a "no R/D" idea.

You're overcomplicating this, in my opinion. Founders are clearly not a game-ender for R/D, because R/D play still exists, a decade after Founders were introduced. But Foundership is essentially random: you might join a region with a very active Founder, and have no idea that in a few months their nation will be CTE and your region vulnerable. All this suggestion does is even things out, and permit regions with lapsed Founders a means of retaining the protection theoretically offered to all regions, without having to go through the difficult - and by no means invasion-proof - process of refounding.

[Celestis Union]

Ahem - I was writing a very long and very angry letter moments ago.
Your raiders: People who are A. breaking the rules by having puppet nations, B. multiple WA accounts. B.multiple nation accounts,
and so forth - are by nature always going to break the rules. However, right now, they are boasting that nothing will ever happen to them, no matter what they do. Well that is till they crash the site with spam. The rules, as you smile and laugh at me are to protect the innocent.

Now - adding a POLICE button or MENTOR button - would allow people to click it and say - hey- recognize me or put up a wall saying, "I do not want to be a part of the stupid raider, invader, defender, crap that goes on."
We are here to socialize and interact with other people around the world to learn, have fun and do an rpg.

We know for a fact, that the Black Riders,and those like them will continue to get away with what they are doing, because
A. nationstates is not going to do anything about it. B. There are other issues out there. and C. The builders/ controllers of this game, from what they have shown, do not care about newbies, do not want to stop the issues, and finally, do not care if someones product is destroyed or not.

I am pretty sure if they were working on a project, after four days of working in their cubical on a difficult project,
Just to wake up the next morning and turn their computer on to find that all their information had been deleted, that they may actually be a bit upset.

SO, quite trying to re-write the game and start a MONITOR and MENTOR system where those who want to raid, invade, defend, and basically hump each others leg can do so. The rest of us, who want to, oh, I don't know, actually build and explore can be left to do so without having to worry that some jackwad with a few servers is going to crack our region and screw up our game.

Have been trying to wade through all the rules and regulations of the game, just to scratch the surface and still have more to read. Then suddenly have fifty people taking over a region, well actually two real life people with thirty puppets. Making life a royal pain. But this didn't happen to me. This is happening to others every day.