Regional Officers

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

I must echo the previous concerns about the dangers of a delegate being able to appoint Regional Officers without delay, immediately upon election.

That said, it is wonderful to see progress on the Summit items, and I do think this will be very useful to many regions... so long as they are not invaded.

[Tereklandia]

Thank you, thank you, thank you!


This adds a whole new level to regional politics.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

I echo previous concerns about the impact this will have on R/D. I would support a waiting period on officers - not necessarily to dismiss existing ones (which could cut both ways; natives or defenders retaking a raided region would remain vulnerable to the appointed officers even after securing the delegacy), but to appoint new ones.

I do have a few other questions about the implementation here:

1) How will the WA power work? Does the WA Officer cast their own endorsements in the WA, or the delegate's? Can both the WA Officer and the delegate have WA power at the same time, or can you have multiple WA officers?

2) In founderless regions (including GCRs), can the delegate permanently remove certain powers from their position? Can they be temporarily deactivated?

I had another but I can't remember now what it was. Oh well.

I could definitely support immediate dismissals and a waiting period on appointments

You're right in a dismissal waiting period cutting both ways - raiders could eject defenders, and would likely have more influence to do so with.



Question: Do nations have to be in the region to use said powers, or, like founders and delegates, can they use powers when not in the region?

[Astarial]

Question: Do nations have to be in the region to use said powers, or, like founders and delegates, can they use powers when not in the region?

THAT WAS MY OTHER QUESTION. Thanks!

[Reijekstan]

Thank you so much!

This changes so many things for the better.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Question: Do nations have to be in the region to use said powers, or, like founders and delegates, can they use powers when not in the region?

THAT WAS MY OTHER QUESTION. Thanks!

Welcome

I mean, it'd kind of suck to lose all power when moving, it'd suck less if it was suspended while outside a region. It'd make sense for a nation to have to be in the region when adding them as an officer, but imagine moving out to make a post or something for five minutes and losing the role...

[Consular]

Yeah I agree with Astarial I think.

Giving it some more thought I'm inclined to say WAD should be able to dismiss immediately... Otherwise new WADs will always be at the mercy of officers for a while. This would effectively eliminate most invading activity actually, which while not necessarily a bad thing for many, is not I think what the admins want.

Appointing should definitely be delayed though. Otherwise invasions become far too difficult to counter.

I suppose we ought to wait for this illusive FAQ..

[Amerika I]

This is awesome!! But i do have a question: do you have to be a WA member to be a regional officer?

[Alustrian]

Question: Do nations have to be in the region to use said powers, or, like founders and delegates, can they use powers when not in the region?

THAT WAS MY OTHER QUESTION. Thanks!

and to add to this ^ - can a nation be RO in multiple regions?

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Yeah I agree with Astarial I think.

Giving it some more thought I'm inclined to say WAD should be able to dismiss immediately... Otherwise new WADs will always be at the mercy of officers for a while. This would effectively eliminate most invading activity actually, which while not necessarily a bad thing for many, is not I think what the admins want.

Appointing should definitely be delayed though. Otherwise invasions become far too difficult to counter.

I suppose we ought to wait for this illusive FAQ..

It would effectively eliminate most activity in regions with active officers given those powers (and perhaps encourage defenders to send ambassadors to be given those powers), but in any region invaders managed to survive in, by combinations of previous politicking while sleeping or raw inactivity, make liberations potentially impossible the other way.


A cap on the number of people able to be given banjection ability would work as well.

IIRC, with things like Rift, the FAQ was populated with user questions

[Ndaku]

This is awesome!! But i do have a question: do you have to be a WA member to be a regional officer?

I'm wondering this too ^

[Ava Ire]

This is great

[[violet]]

Most excellent! I take it this will be available for both game-created and userite regions?

Correct!

Are officers' powers come into effect as soon as an executive adds them?
Do delegates need to be in power for a certain amount of time to add officers?

Powers take effect immediately, and there's no minimum time limit.

I am very interested in hearing the reasoning behind this particular change.

What came out of the Summit (and other discussions) is a set of points everyone agrees upon, such as Regional Officers being a good thing in principle, plus another bag of points people don't agree on, such as whether additional rules are required to prevent particular scenarios. I wrote code for much of this, but in the end we've gone with the simpler, optimistic implementation, rather than the conservative, complex one, with a view to seeing how it actually goes. If we decide additional rules are necessary, like time delays and influence costs, then okay. But we didn't want to start with those because they remove a lot of the power and flexibility of the feature.

If regional officers can eject, will that include delegates if the officer has enough influence?

Yes, a Regional Officer could eject (and ban) a Delegate, given sufficient Influence. If the Delegate has Border Control authority, though, they could unban themselves again. Or if the Delgate have Executive authority, they could give themselves Border Control authority, then unban themselves.

1) How will the WA power work? Does the WA Officer cast their own endorsements in the WA, or the delegate's? Can both the WA Officer and the delegate have WA power at the same time, or can you have multiple WA officers?

Regional Officers cannot be given World Assembly powers. Nor can World Assembly powers be removed the Delegate.

2) In founderless regions (including GCRs), can the delegate permanently remove certain powers from their position? Can they be temporarily deactivated?

Technically, yes: They can go in and remove powers from the Delegacy. But in practice, no, because Delegates always automatically have Executive authority in a founderless region, so can always restore those powers.

Question: Do nations have to be in the region to use said powers, or, like founders and delegates, can they use powers when not in the region?

Like Delegates & Founders, Regional Officers don't need to be present in the region to wield their powers. However, nations do need to be present to be appointed as an Officer in the first place.

do you have to be a WA member to be a regional officer?

No.

can a nation be RO in multiple regions?

Yes. Nation pages, however, only show icons signifying authority in the current region.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Thanks for [v]erifying!

I am very interested in hearing the reasoning behind this particular change.

What came out of the Summit (and other discussions) is a set of points everyone agrees upon, such as Regional Officers being a good thing in principle, plus another bag of points people don't agree on, such as whether additional rules are required to prevent particular scenarios. I wrote code for much of this, but in the end we've gone with the simpler, optimistic implementation, rather than the conservative, complex one, with a view to seeing how it actually goes. If we decide additional rules are necessary, like time delays and influence costs, then okay. But we didn't want to start with those because they remove a lot of the power and flexibility of the feature.

/me makes note not to ball to hard, or this will get less fun

[Mallorea and Riva]

[*]No Influence is required to appoint, dismiss, or modify a Regional Officer.

It also stinks that an invader delegate can instantly appoint officers to help them banject would-be liberators the following update.

There are at least three solutions to this problem that I can think of off hand.

• Limit the number of RO's which can wield banjection authority to just 1 (besides delegate of course)
• Limit the rate at which nations can banject others from regions
• Limit the rate at which regions can have nations banjected from them

[Guy]

But here...the thread you cite is from the "Gameplay 'R/D' Summit," yet you have totally lost it when it comes to R/D.

Totally, completely lost it. Three fries short of a happy meal. Gone entirely cuckoo, troppo, wacko, bonkers.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

It also stinks that an invader delegate can instantly appoint officers to help them banject would-be liberators the following update.

There are at least three solutions to this problem that I can think of off hand.

• Limit the number of RO's which can wield banjection authority to just 1 (besides delegate of course)
• Limit the rate at which nations can banject others from regions
• Limit the rate at which regions can have nations banjected from them

The way I read [v], she's sitting on code to fix things like this if they become issues in practice.

[Bounty Bertie]

What came out of the Summit (and other discussions) is a set of points everyone agrees upon, such as Regional Officers being a good thing in principle, plus another bag of points people don't agree on, such as whether additional rules are required to prevent particular scenarios. I wrote code for much of this, but in the end we've gone with the simpler, optimistic implementation, rather than the conservative, complex one, with a view to seeing how it actually goes. If we decide additional rules are necessary, like time delays and influence costs, then okay. But we didn't want to start with those because they remove a lot of the power and flexibility of the feature.

So rather than bringing balance back to R/D, you have decided to kill liberations, make griefing regions 6x faster, enable raiders to instantly remove any added defence natives may have gained from this, AND let taggers appoint themselves ROs in the 30+ regions they hit every day to continue bringing their spam back even after they no longer hold WAD there.

Congratulations on thoroughly thinking these changes through and the broad impact they will have!

[Mallorea and Riva]

There are at least three solutions to this problem that I can think of off hand.

• Limit the number of RO's which can wield banjection authority to just 1 (besides delegate of course)
• Limit the rate at which nations can banject others from regions
• Limit the rate at which regions can have nations banjected from them

The way I read [v], she's sitting on code to fix things like this if they become issues in practice.

Yes, I'm just pointing out that there are solutions to the potential problems.

[Kaboomlandia]

Why not a 24 hour block on RO powers that they must remain in the region for to get the powers? That way it stops RO power being granted for taggers.

[Trotterdam]

Founders don't need influence, and should be able to delegate their not-needing-influence ability to regional officers if they want to. Because for regions with an active founder, regional officers aren't necessary for security anyway, only convenience. Plus influence is almost impossible to accumulate at useful amounts for non-WA nations.

If the founder ceases to exist than regional officers would lose their not-needing-influence ability (if they had it) until the founder returns. And delegates wouldn't be able to grant it even if they can appoint officers (more generally, delegates probably shouldn't be able to grant any abilities they haven't been given themselves).

[Mediobogdum]

Given the obvious likelihood of having a power-hungry or corrupt regional officer(s) wanting to try and take control of a region, why would any delegate give away any powers at all and just not bother with regional officers?

[Elke and Elba]

Given the obvious likelihood of having a power-hungry or corrupt regional officer(s) wanting to try and take control of a region, why would any delegate give away any powers at all and just not bother with regional officers?

Err, that is based on the presumption that everyone's scheming?

I don't think it is that likely ROs are malevolent especially in UCRs.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Given the obvious likelihood of having a power-hungry or corrupt regional officer(s) wanting to try and take control of a region, why would any delegate give away any powers at all and just not bother with regional officers?

Because you can give them select powers only - i.e., WFE editing (Kills my old "let me be exec del so I can change the WFE" infiltration line ), or just embassies and RMB management. It's not all or nothing like exec/nonexec delegates, it's flexible.

[Flanderlion]

Given the obvious likelihood of having a power-hungry or corrupt regional officer(s) wanting to try and take control of a region, why would any delegate give away any powers at all and just not bother with regional officers?

Border Control is the only real threat to the region. The other options are more helpful admin - such as the Malviet in TWP being able to accept and reject embassies (I think that would be allowed under Max Rules), or Drachma being able to send mass TGs to the region for issues. RO's aren't all or nothing, they're flexible, as Souls said.