NATION

PASSWORD

Replacing Inactive Founders

Bug reports, general help, ideas for improvements, and questions about how things are meant to work.
User avatar
AP3 10
Secretary
 
Posts: 34
Founded: Jul 21, 2006
Ex-Nation

Replacing Inactive Founders

Postby AP3 10 » Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:58 pm

This Thread is a response to the 'remove regional passwords entirely' thread. The idea occurred to me as a better way to ensure invaders don't always win if they know the password (if they are really a example of the helpful, coloniser, constructive chaps they sometimes suggest, maybe the founder will accept them? :) ;) ) and no one else does.

I would like to clarify that I believe changes to the system, could be more than capable of finding a way of picking a founder who easily isn't a invader, and certainly more capable so than the present system (where WA Delegates are for a finite period of time piked) is of preventing outside invaders gaining unlimited power. In the End I'm not sure anything will actually really change as a result of these discussions; it is a very hard issue, but maybe I will be proved wrong.

Got to page but I am sorry, unable to sit and read further. I feel PWs are useful, and can in the rules clearly be used both ways (Defence,Destruction). I am about to make a off-topic suggestion, and make it because I believe the subject is something that has not got these two sides in the rules, therefore please don't kill me, lets just discuss it elsewhere (not here), say at the link I provide.

At the moment we have founders. They Found the region and always have all the powers,including the power to set passwords.That is the case in all regions except the few which don't have founders (you could say these regions were founded by the mods, inaccurate I know but they wouldn't be like it without them) and for the sake of this suggestion I'll forget to mention them again.

The Problem with greifing always was that it was hard to work out who had the right to stay, who owned the region in fairness, compared to who owned it in reality. Now we are all working on the assumed model that a region is its members, its members the region. I believe thats true in all cases yes, even raider regions (sending invaders) are owned by invaders , but for the purposes of this huge time consuming problem facing mods this truth is too hard to pin down specifically and easily. Once a region is founded, the next inhabitant moves in, it is assumed that region is owned by the two within, who have the right to reside but for the purposes of this huge problem I propose this is not the case. That region,like all player created regions, was created by a founder, just as NS was created by the figure Max. That founder (both senses) in our system, has always had the power to welcome and the power to eject nations, they may choose to delegate powers, share powers; but in the end, in the code, they can always choose not to. Therefore clearly that region is the founders whether it is passworded or not. That power of the Founder goes on and is insurmountable by Defenders and Invaders alike, while invasions are still possible, with a founder, they do end when the founder notices and decides who they want in the region; this reduces the damage of the invasion to negligible and makes it unlikely people will leave the game in disgrace of its influence system. The founder is not affected by Influence, I do not think that should change.

The only real problem for mods if they want to decide this arises when a founder falls off the radar, becoming in-contactable or apathetic. They (the founder)still own the region in the sense I laid out, but are not utilising their ownership rights. The only nation left with 'ownership rights to act' in the code is a WA Delegate, and there ownership is not infinite, as we know founders to be, and is hard to specifically define between the two sides for the mods should anyone contest it. Therefore the code means that if we don't have a founder, we do not have someone in the region with ultimately distinguishable ownership rights at the unpredicted point in the future when the mods time is involved, despite the fact we know we all do, we won't be able to prove ownership at a blink of the eye using the current code as our god. I suggest the only means in the current code to ensure "ultimately distinguishable ownership rights" is to have a founder, and therefore suggest that if you don't have a founder, but do want these rights, ultimately you need a founder. Now there is refounding. I know. And that solves the basic problem. But the issue is defenders don't expect to defend a night, but invaders do, and so leaves the founder, (or the mods) as the only person who can solve the problem after it happens. If there's no founder, there's no one to solve the problem, because Mods can't have the resources to do it. That is the reason for this suggestion
Last edited by AP3 10 on Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
[violet]
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14851
Founded: Antiquity

Re: Replacing Inactive Founders

Postby [violet] » Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:46 pm

I can't figure out where the suggestion is! That all regions be assigned Founders somehow?

User avatar
Erastide
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 1299
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Re: Replacing Inactive Founders

Postby Erastide » Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:16 pm

The idea is to have a mechanism to replace founders. Perhaps a vote that can be initiated?

User avatar
Valipac
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1285
Founded: May 08, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: Replacing Inactive Founders

Postby Valipac » Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:33 pm

Erastide wrote:The idea is to have a mechanism to replace founders. Perhaps a vote that can be initiated?

If region residents were voting to replace founders, wouldn't it then be the same as delegates?
Maredoratica – A Realistic Modern Tech Roleplaying Region
"What is written without effort is in general read without pleasure." - Samuel Johnson

Wiki | Using Satellites in Warfare | BoF 34 Champion
Designer of Ex-Nation Flag | AKA: Kampf

User avatar
TannerFrankLand
Envoy
 
Posts: 316
Founded: Jun 10, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: Replacing Inactive Founders

Postby TannerFrankLand » Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:39 pm

So every region would have a founder? Wouldn't that make invading... impossible? Or next ot it....
Last edited by TannerFrankLand on Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
WA Security Council:
SC #3 ~ Condemn Nazi Europe [SORRY!]
SC #12 ~ Commend Todd McCloud
SC #18 ~ Commend Sedgistan
SC #27 ~ Condemn Unknown
SC #36 ~ Liberate Eastern Europe
SC #51 ~ Commend Fudgetopia
SC #67 ~ Commend Naivetry
SC #71 ~ Repeal Condemn Unknown.
WA General Assembly:
GA #81 ~ Disaster Preparedness Act
GA #105 ~ Preparing For Disasters
GA #164 ~ Consular Rights
GA #278 ~ Repeal "Right to Privacy"
Security Council Fanatic
Delegate of St Abbaddon,
Member of the Council of State of Balder,
Former delegate of The South Pacific,
Topid

User avatar
Valipac
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1285
Founded: May 08, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: Replacing Inactive Founders

Postby Valipac » Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:08 am

TannerFrankLand wrote:So every region would have a founder? Wouldn't that make invading... impossible? Or next ot it....

And if a region did get successfully raided, could they not change the founder and provide the "end game" scenario other theads have tried to find ways to avoid?
Maredoratica – A Realistic Modern Tech Roleplaying Region
"What is written without effort is in general read without pleasure." - Samuel Johnson

Wiki | Using Satellites in Warfare | BoF 34 Champion
Designer of Ex-Nation Flag | AKA: Kampf

User avatar
Marcuslandia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1082
Founded: Aug 26, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: Replacing Inactive Founders

Postby Marcuslandia » Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:15 am

A couple points.
1) Real Life. A country is founded. Do the people Founding that nation automatically own it _forever_? Ooo! Just came to me: Cicely, AK in "Northern Exposure". Do the residents have the right to establish their own town government and make laws, despite the fact that Maurice pretty much owns all of the real estate? I know what Maurice has to say, but what do _you_ believe?

2) Given: Founders have the power. IF IT WAS JUST THEM, then when they leave, the power goes with them. But it's _not_ just them. It's a joint enterprise between ALL of the residents, Founder included. As long as the Founder remains, the joint enterprise is protected. Just because the Founder moves on with his Real Life (or whatever), why MUST that protection disintegrate into a mushy mess? If it's something substantial that the Founder wields, why can't he simply hand it off to someone else? Or sell it off to the highest bidder? Or bequeath it to his subjects to let them sort out how that power will be handled?

If a secondary Founder becomes a recurring elected position, it may as well be the Delegate. But that would take a dictatorial position and turn it into a political tug-o'-war. What The People really need is to have Cincinnatus to step up to protect the empire in its hour of need, and when the crisis is over, go back to his farm.

By stripping the region of the powers of the Founder (which are clear cut and precise) minimizes the regional participation of the Faithful that answered the Founder's call. Without those other people, the Founder would be sitting alone in his room entertaining himself with shadow puppets. What _makes_ a region is its people. Depriving them of Founder protection just because ONE guy leaves is probably the single most unjust thing that happens in this game.

Let the Founder pass the torch. And if he doesn't do that on his own when he's heading for Lazarus, or if he's totally negligent, having departed his own region, then let The People choose one of their own to serve as Dictator For Life. That would certainly be simpler and more focused than the muddle in place now.
"If you don't know what is worth dying for, your life isn't worth living."

"Choose wisely."

User avatar
Romanar
Diplomat
 
Posts: 624
Founded: Feb 15, 2006
Compulsory Consumerist State

Re: Replacing Inactive Founders

Postby Romanar » Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:33 am

TannerFrankLand wrote:So every region would have a founder? Wouldn't that make invading... impossible? Or next ot it....


Sounds like it to me. :(

Also, as things are now a Founder could still pass his nation to a successor. Maybe even use a special puppet for Founder (MyRegionFounder).

User avatar
TannerFrankLand
Envoy
 
Posts: 316
Founded: Jun 10, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: Replacing Inactive Founders

Postby TannerFrankLand » Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:38 am

Romanar wrote:
TannerFrankLand wrote:So every region would have a founder? Wouldn't that make invading... impossible? Or next ot it....


Sounds like it to me. :(

Also, as things are now a Founder could still pass his nation to a successor. Maybe even use a special puppet for Founder (MyRegionFounder).

Mhmm, and they let that founder be a puppet of a defender region probably...

Anyway, invading/defending is important. This would destroy it. If there arn't founderless regions to invade, there is no need for defenders, and an entire section of the game is gone.
Last edited by TannerFrankLand on Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
WA Security Council:
SC #3 ~ Condemn Nazi Europe [SORRY!]
SC #12 ~ Commend Todd McCloud
SC #18 ~ Commend Sedgistan
SC #27 ~ Condemn Unknown
SC #36 ~ Liberate Eastern Europe
SC #51 ~ Commend Fudgetopia
SC #67 ~ Commend Naivetry
SC #71 ~ Repeal Condemn Unknown.
WA General Assembly:
GA #81 ~ Disaster Preparedness Act
GA #105 ~ Preparing For Disasters
GA #164 ~ Consular Rights
GA #278 ~ Repeal "Right to Privacy"
Security Council Fanatic
Delegate of St Abbaddon,
Member of the Council of State of Balder,
Former delegate of The South Pacific,
Topid

User avatar
Martyrdoom
Diplomat
 
Posts: 504
Founded: Apr 14, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: Replacing Inactive Founders

Postby Martyrdoom » Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:40 am

TannerFrankLand wrote:
Romanar wrote:
TannerFrankLand wrote:So every region would have a founder? Wouldn't that make invading... impossible? Or next ot it....


Sounds like it to me. :(

Also, as things are now a Founder could still pass his nation to a successor. Maybe even use a special puppet for Founder (MyRegionFounder).

Mhmm, and they let that founder be a puppet of a defender region probably...

Anyway, invading/defending is important. This would destroy it. If there arn't founderless regions to invade, there is no need for defenders, and an entire section of the game is gone.



I'd agree; if you want to keep traditional invading (and defending) a real feature of the game then this is a non-starter. Moreover, like I've said previously the mechanism to re-found a region is essentially there already. The game already provides for replacing inactive founders. It's up to players to do it between themselves, assess the risks like everyone else does, and do it if they can and really want to.

Even then, however, invading would be impelled to mutate into the very griefing that people seem hellbent on avoiding.

With traditional invading dead, if it were me, I'd think of using enough infiltration and deception to kick out the founder along with the inhabitants (or do it between us) in one debilitating stroke with the aim of re-founding the region under our jurisdiction (and to keep it that way for sure, password it using a simple visible one).
Smelled a Spring on the Salford wind

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 19247
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Re: Replacing Inactive Founders

Postby Bears Armed » Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:54 am

Martyrdoom wrote:With traditional invading dead, if it were me, I'd think of using enough infiltration and deception to kick out the founder along with the inhabitants (or do it between us) in one debilitating stroke with the aim of re-founding the region under our jurisdiction (and to keep it that way for sure, password it using a simple visible one).
The founder can still operate the Regional Controls from outside the region, so they could counter-attack quite easily during the period of time between you seizing power and you re-founding the region.
Last edited by Bears Armed on Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Martyrdoom
Diplomat
 
Posts: 504
Founded: Apr 14, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: Replacing Inactive Founders

Postby Martyrdoom » Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:29 am

Bears Armed wrote:
Martyrdoom wrote:With traditional invading dead, if it were me, I'd think of using enough infiltration and deception to kick out the founder along with the inhabitants (or do it between us) in one debilitating stroke with the aim of re-founding the region under our jurisdiction (and to keep it that way for sure, password it using a simple visible one).
The founder can still operate the Regional Controls from outside the region, so they could counter-attack quite easily during the period of time between you seizing power and you re-founding the region.


This is true. I apologise as I was not so clear.

However, I did not mean the time between me seizing power and re-founding the region so much; I meant the 'time' between kicking out everyone and re-founding the region AFTER seizing power: the very seizing of power in this scenario assumes that it would not elicit any undue negative reaction from the founder due to their perception of 'native' legitimacy, succession, etc: the use of intrigue, deception and guile.

This two-fold act would be implemented in no time at all: I'd aim for that endgame immediately. As soon as all the inhabitants were all ejected, in other words, I'd go for the re-founding and then the passwording; thus I would not go for the delegacy UNTIL I had accumulated potentially commanding and decisive influence nor would I realistically pick a large region.

This may not work everytime, but it would some of the time: I'd proffer the thought that complacent founders especially do not really expect to be kicked out of their regions and have them refounded all in one seamless act.


p.s. this scenario could also be theoreticaly realised now but passwords allied to founders does make it harder and less appealing in terms of cost/benefit.
Last edited by Martyrdoom on Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:45 am, edited 4 times in total.
Smelled a Spring on the Salford wind

User avatar
Ballotonia
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5450
Founded: Antiquity
New York Times Democracy

Re: Replacing Inactive Founders

Postby Ballotonia » Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:48 am

How about: the founder can set in Regional Controls a backup founder. When the update comes along and establishes the Founder nation is dead, the backup founder automatically (and irreversibly) becomes Founder if and only if that nation is alive and in the region. So far, so good, no harm done and it helps regions against suffering a sudden founderlessness (seems this word isn't in the dictionary, SHAME on Merriam-Webster! :p)

One could add to that, that if no backup founder can be installed (either because the named nation is elsewhere, it doesn't exist, or no nation was listed as backup founder) the nation present in the region longest (the first listed in the XML feed) becomes Founder.

Note that it's the second part of this suggestion which has severe consequences. Only regions left without Founder would be the Game-Created ones (to which such an assignment procedure obviously wouldn't count). As such, the invasion/defense game would end up getting locked out almost entirely (IMHO no big loss at this stage, but worthy of mention nonetheless).

Ballotonia
"Een volk dat voor tirannen zwicht zal meer dan lijf en goed verliezen, dan dooft het licht…" -- H.M. van Randwijk

User avatar
Valipac
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1285
Founded: May 08, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: Replacing Inactive Founders

Postby Valipac » Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:51 am

Ballotonia wrote:As such, the invasion/defense game would end up getting locked out almost entirely (IMHO no big loss at this stage, but worthy of mention nonetheless).


Maybe it's no big loss to you, but I assure you that the multitude of players who invade and defend would think differently.
Maredoratica – A Realistic Modern Tech Roleplaying Region
"What is written without effort is in general read without pleasure." - Samuel Johnson

Wiki | Using Satellites in Warfare | BoF 34 Champion
Designer of Ex-Nation Flag | AKA: Kampf

User avatar
Unibot
Senator
 
Posts: 4292
Founded: May 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: Replacing Inactive Founders

Postby Unibot » Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:52 am

The idea is to have a mechanism to replace founders. Perhaps a vote that can be initiated?


That would really suck for regions that are having a founder election, and unfortunately have an invader group barge in to conquer the Foundership at the last moment. There would be no way to take back the founder position, unless.... the Founder was an elected position afterwards the death of the first, original founder. But then, who will be allowed to vote on the Founder? Because it makes no sense that the founder be tied to the WA or "founder-raiders" be allowed to use non-WA puppets. So the whole thing would be a bit of a adminstrative mess to organize.

User avatar
Erastide
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 1299
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Re: Replacing Inactive Founders

Postby Erastide » Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:16 am

Well the idea was that regions without founders that have an invisible password could protect themselves. So there would be no invasion there.

But in a general sense, perhaps your vote weight could be attached to your influence in the region.

User avatar
Unibot
Senator
 
Posts: 4292
Founded: May 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: Replacing Inactive Founders

Postby Unibot » Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:23 am

But in a general sense, perhaps your vote weight could be attached to your influence in the region.


I don't mind that.

But some invaders seem to gain a lot of influence in a short amount of time due to the slanted biasness towards endorsements in the "Regional Influence Equation" as opposed to residency.

I would hate to see this became a tool for invaders to exercise their power as almighty founder dictators - we have enough invaders using refoundation through password griefing as it is. At least in our current system there's that small, tiny chance a liberator-hawker could steal the region from the invader trying to refound.

User avatar
Marcuslandia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1082
Founded: Aug 26, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: Replacing Inactive Founders

Postby Marcuslandia » Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:42 am

Unibot wrote:
The idea is to have a mechanism to replace founders. Perhaps a vote that can be initiated?


That would really suck for regions that are having a founder election, and unfortunately have an invader group barge in to conquer the Foundership at the last moment. There would be no way to take back the founder position, unless.... the Founder was an elected position afterwards the death of the first, original founder. But then, who will be allowed to vote on the Founder? Because it makes no sense that the founder be tied to the WA or "founder-raiders" be allowed to use non-WA puppets. So the whole thing would be a bit of a adminstrative mess to organize.


What about event triggers? AT THE MOMENT a Founder leaves the region or CTEes, the nations that remain are the ONLY nations eligible to vote for the Replacement Founder from amongst their ranks. They get sent a list of regional inhabitants and they get to choose one to be their candidate for RF. No electioneering; vote now or forever hold your piece. In the case of a tie, the oldest resident wins.

IF invaders had heavily infiltrated a region, they may very well have the numbers to assure that one of their own wins. But that would have required them to mobilize in advance prior to the Founder's departure (the Founder would have had to tell them he was leaving, in which case it would be a case of the Founder selling out his own region), or they would have had to been anticipating his demise. (That would be speculation on their part. Imagine the Founder coming up on Day 28 before he CTEes -- and then he logs in. The invader build up would be for naught and it would be another 28 days at the earliest before the opportunity would present itself.)

In regards to ballot box stuffing, given the possibility that the region could get flooded with puppets to stuff the ballot box, voting would most likely be limited to just WAs. (Unfortunate for regions where the residents don't want to play at the WA.)

If _nobody_ votes for RF, or there are no eligible candidates/voters, then what you get is what you already have now: a Founder-less region.
"If you don't know what is worth dying for, your life isn't worth living."

"Choose wisely."

User avatar
Ballotonia
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5450
Founded: Antiquity
New York Times Democracy

Re: Replacing Inactive Founders

Postby Ballotonia » Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:50 am

The problem I see with these voting mechanisms is that they complicate matters in an attempt to establish 'nativity' so that only 'natives' get to vote.

Problem is, in whatever way one defines nativity, invaders (and if they can, defenders) will pretend to be natives in an attempt to swing the vote in their desired direction. If it takes putting 25 non-WA puppets in a region, then that's what will be done. Either way, when push comes to shove the 'real natives' will find themselves short on voting power.

Ballotonia
"Een volk dat voor tirannen zwicht zal meer dan lijf en goed verliezen, dan dooft het licht…" -- H.M. van Randwijk

User avatar
Marcuslandia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1082
Founded: Aug 26, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: Replacing Inactive Founders

Postby Marcuslandia » Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:10 pm

Which is why I suggested that as unfair as it might be, only WAs should be allowed to vote.

It probably would be beneficial for all players to be nudged to have at least one of their nations with WA membership. Costs nothing to apply, and if you really, really don't want to participate nobody is requiring you to do so. But it clearly defines which of your nations is guaranteed a vote in all things. In fact, the ONLY reason I can see for not having one of your nations apply is because you _are_ trying to wrangle more than one vote. Like, having two puppets in two regions; you want to be able to vote on issues in both regions, but if only one has a WA, then the other goes "voiceless". Makes for a hard choice as to where you will have suffrage. But the flipside is that it assures that people wouldn't be able to stuff ballot boxes with puppet ballots.
"If you don't know what is worth dying for, your life isn't worth living."

"Choose wisely."

User avatar
Unibot
Senator
 
Posts: 4292
Founded: May 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: Replacing Inactive Founders

Postby Unibot » Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:54 pm

It probably would be beneficial for all players to be nudged to have at least one of their nations with WA membership. Costs nothing to apply, and if you really, really don't want to participate nobody is requiring you to do so. But it clearly defines which of your nations is guaranteed a vote in all things. In fact, the ONLY reason I can see for not having one of your nations apply is because you _are_ trying to wrangle more than one vote. Like, having two puppets in two regions; you want to be able to vote on issues in both regions, but if only one has a WA, then the other goes "voiceless". Makes for a hard choice as to where you will have suffrage. But the flipside is that it assures that people wouldn't be able to stuff ballot boxes with puppet ballots.


A lot people of try to keep as far a way as possible from the WA - why should regions be forced to partake in the WA? A Founder has no connection to the WA because its not their business. As well, why should non-WA nations be ruled by WA nations? - I realize the Delegate has power over them now, but in our present system, a non-WA nation can rule over the Delegate if they're the founder.

User avatar
Zemnaya Svoboda
Diplomat
 
Posts: 828
Founded: Jan 06, 2004
Civil Rights Lovefest

Re: Replacing Inactive Founders

Postby Zemnaya Svoboda » Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:56 pm

I like the idea of Founders designating Successors.

I do not like the idea of electing replacement Founders in any way, shape, or form.

User avatar
Erastide
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 1299
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Re: Replacing Inactive Founders

Postby Erastide » Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:24 pm

Successors I can see being quite nice, but what happens if the founder nation comes back? I know my region's founder is terribly absentminded, he used a puppet as has been suggested for his founder nation, but given it's just a puppet, doesn't remember to login to it. So when he resurrects it, will the successor be booted?

User avatar
Marcuslandia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1082
Founded: Aug 26, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: Replacing Inactive Founders

Postby Marcuslandia » Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:59 pm

Unibot wrote:A lot people of try to keep as far a way as possible from the WA - why should regions be forced to partake in the WA? A Founder has no connection to the WA because its not their business. As well, why should non-WA nations be ruled by WA nations? - I realize the Delegate has power over them now, but in our present system, a non-WA nation can rule over the Delegate if they're the founder.


This is sort of like the argument of "What constitutes proof of identity?) You know, driver's license versus photo ID. At the moment, the _only_ mechanism that more or less assures ONE identity is the WA.

So how about introducing the ID nation? It's the one that lets you cast ballots in places where you're allowed only one ballot. The simple form for most players will be to make their ID nation their WA member. If you only have one nation, now worries; that one is your ID nation. Says so right up by the top panel.

If people insist on having more than one nation, and game mechanics require that only ONE of them be eligible to vote for whatever, then sooner or later you MUST create a system that clearly identifies which one that will be.
"If you don't know what is worth dying for, your life isn't worth living."

"Choose wisely."

User avatar
Ballotonia
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5450
Founded: Antiquity
New York Times Democracy

Re: Replacing Inactive Founders

Postby Ballotonia » Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:05 am

Marcuslandia wrote:Which is why I suggested that as unfair as it might be, only WAs should be allowed to vote.


Same problem. If there's a ballot box, it WILL be stuffed. There's a reason that for the past 6 years Ballotonia's motto has been "Vote early, vote often.", it's a matter of placing ones WA strategically and having lots of friends to cast their WA vote strategically as well. The moment it counts there will suddenly be a lot of WA nations casting more votes than the 'natives'. Invaders and defenders hunt in packs ;)

Ballotonia
"Een volk dat voor tirannen zwicht zal meer dan lijf en goed verliezen, dan dooft het licht…" -- H.M. van Randwijk

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Technical

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Trotterdam

Advertisement

Remove ads