NationStates

Next to the option to enable a password for a region should be a checkbox connected to the ability to delay any regional migrations until the current WA Delegate or Founder 'approves' a nations entry, or chooses to 'reject' nations currently on a "Pending Members List". This is a more region administration intensive method of securing a region than a password, but is also more secure in that founders and WA Delegates can watch the regional borders and chose who they specifically want to be 'inside'.

If the founder/WAD changes the password after each new admission (and doesn't distribute the password among their regionmates), it accomplishes the same thing without the extra work from the techies.

I would like to modify my suggestion in that it would be a completely encompassing replacement of regional passwords.

Crumlark wrote:I would like to modify my suggestion in that it would be a completely encompassing replacement of regional passwords.

Again, why are we making extra work for the techies, if the same concept can be accomplished with the current password system?

Mousebumples wrote:

Crumlark wrote:I would like to modify my suggestion in that it would be a completely encompassing replacement of regional passwords.

Again, why are we making extra work for the techies, if the same concept can be accomplished with the current password system?

How many regions that lack an active founder actually could do what you say? Passwords are very expensive influence-wise to manage, aren't they?.

Trimer wrote:

Mousebumples wrote:Again, why are we making extra work for the techies, if the same concept can be accomplished with the current password system?

How many regions that lack an active founder actually could do what you say? Passwords are very expensive influence-wise to manage, aren't they?.

Depends how much influence you have. I was the WAD for a founderless region for a few years, but I had spent a few years additionally prior to that building up my influence to do so. I was able to change the password without any issue, but I understand that may be less feasible for newer nations in newer regions.

Also: I would expect that - if implemented - a system like this would use a similar amount of influence. If you're concerned about the influence toll of password changing, I'd expect that this wouldn't be an "easy fix" to that problem.

The goal of regions and gameplay, so far as has been explained to me by Techies/Admins, is to promote balance between R/N/D. Yes, there are risks involved with having to worry about changing your password all the time and decreasing your available influence. However, that risk is easily mitigated by migrating to a new region that has an active founder, who can then do all of those fun administrative things without using any influence. (Of course, if you have a founder, you may not need a password.)

This would also be useful in that the ability to enter a region is, in fact, limited to the window of time that the founder/WA Delegate would allow it. For example, with the "Delayed Entry" system in place, a founder/WA Delegate can allow people in as they please without the difficulties of having a potential member type in a password, and go to sleep. A little ways after midnight, some update raiders attempt to enter the region. Their entry attempt is logged by the "Pending Members List", and the update passes without event. The next morning, the founder/WA Delegate can wake up, and dismiss the pending members.

And I find this to be an important edit because of the widely advertised "opt-out" theory that everyone can't seem to get enough of about passwords, the one that had been used to shoot down every idea of "giving RP regions additional protections", because they had a password that could keep them out of R/D if they "really" wanted to stay out of it.

This idea places the admission of outsiders into the region exclusively into the hands of the delegate/founder, and moreover, it cannot be guessed or cracked (without hacking into a nation account, which is not legal by NS TOS). So, in that the delegate/founder can restrict the time-frame that people can enter (ie: not updates), can choose who may enter specifically (ie: not raiders), and it cannot be circumvented legally, it is superior to a password as enough regional protection from the R/D world to legitimize the "opt-out" theory.

Legitime Opt out from R/D gameplay is A) Keeping Founder alive and active, B) and in the region itself for C) Making and keeping Delegate Access Non-Executive. (+ Optionally also Password and Banning Options)

Basic problem with all these suggestions 'improve' or change existing password option and influence levels etc. is that people who suggest such changes almost always forget look those suggestions from view point how they inflict to a regional situation if raiders has already taken control over the delegacy of a region. Usually these 'good' ideas for better security will turn exactly opposite to their intended aim.

If you change peoples' possibilities protect their regions more better, you always change also Raiders' possibilities keep those regions after successful invasion/Raid, making defenses and liberations harder.

...and as aforementioned, Opt out exists already giving fool proof and fire sure protection against all kind malicious coups over a region.

This would not be fair for Defenders, as the nation can simply be denied entry.

But you must be aware: This does the same thing as regional passwords. A raider dominated region that has a password on it is good as gone regardless of the entry of this method. However, this allows the final measure of security for Foundered/secure WA delegate regions that they have been looking for.

Crumlark wrote:But you must be aware: This does the same thing as regional passwords. A raider dominated region that has a password on it is good as gone regardless of the entry of this method. However, this allows the final measure of security for Foundered/secure WA delegate regions that they have been looking for.

That's not true, actually. For one thing, we have an entire WA resolution category in the Security Council - Liberations - which remove the Delegate's ability to enforce a password. This prevents passwords from automatically being a 'game over' scenario in a region.

If a raider WA Delegate had the ability to prevent anyone from entering at update, on the other hand - or to prevent anyone from entering unless they were specifically approved - defenders could never free any region that raiders had taken over.

Naivetry wrote:

Crumlark wrote:But you must be aware: This does the same thing as regional passwords. A raider dominated region that has a password on it is good as gone regardless of the entry of this method. However, this allows the final measure of security for Foundered/secure WA delegate regions that they have been looking for.

That's not true, actually. For one thing, we have an entire WA resolution category in the Security Council - Liberations - which remove the Delegate's ability to enforce a password. This prevents passwords from automatically being a 'game over' scenario in a region.

If a raider WA Delegate had the ability to prevent anyone from entering at update, on the other hand - or to prevent anyone from entering unless they were specifically approved - defenders could never free any region that raiders had taken over.

Could we not extend the Liberation function to this as well?

Crumlark wrote:Could we not extend the Liberation function to this as well?

I suppose we could. But a better question might be whether non-military regions actually would gain any safety from this method. Most Delegates who are not a part of the R/D world will not have a good way of knowing whether a given nation is safe to let in or not. Raiders could infiltrate slowly with puppet nations, just as they can now with passwords.

Generally, anything that neutral regions could use to keep raiders out, raiders can use much more effectively to keep defenders from liberating regions. The more tools you give a Delegate to control the safety of his or her region, the more tools you've given a bad Delegate to continue oppressing it, too. (Which is kinda how R/D became such a big deal in the first place. )

Cora II wrote:Legitime Opt out from R/D gameplay is A) Keeping Founder alive and active, B) and in the region itself for C) Making and keeping Delegate Access Non-Executive. (+ Optionally also Password and Banning Options)

Basic problem with all these suggestions 'improve' or change existing password option and influence levels etc. is that people who suggest such changes almost always forget look those suggestions from view point how they inflict to a regional situation if raiders has already taken control over the delegacy of a region. Usually these 'good' ideas for better security will turn exactly opposite to their intended aim.

If you change peoples' possibilities protect their regions more better, you always change also Raiders' possibilities keep those regions after successful invasion/Raid, making defenses and liberations harder.

...and as aforementioned, Opt out exists already giving fool proof and fire sure protection against all kind malicious coups over a region.

Why do so many people not understand, you cannot force a founder to stay active. If they become inactive, you can't do shit about it. You're screwed. So that whole list is worthless.