Advertisement
by Kaboomlandia » Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:19 pm
by Alustrian » Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:22 pm
[violet] wrote:Alustrian wrote: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.
by Salvagard » Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:24 pm
[violet] wrote:From the News page:Over the next few days, regions will gain the ability to appoint nations as Regional Officers, with authority over specific areas. For example, a Diplomacy Officer can be given the authority to establish embassies with other regions, and a Communications Officer to recruit and manage welcome telegrams. The name and authority of each office is up to you.
To identify the power a nation holds in its region, you'll begin seeing new icons on nation pages beneath the region, signifying their authority: Executive, World Assembly, Appearance, Border Control, Embassies, Communications, and Polls.
This feature has come from much community discussion over a long time: thank you very much to everyone who contributed! It's a big change (affecting over 5,000 lines of code) and could make a big difference to regional dynamics.
Summary
- Regions may appoint up to 12 Regional Officers.
- Executive authority is required to appoint, dismiss, or modify Regional Officers. Only Founders and Delegates can have Executive authority.
- Apart from Executive authority, Regional Officers can be granted the ability to do anything a Founder or Delegate does.
- No Influence is required to appoint, dismiss, or modify a Regional Officer.
- Influence costs are doubled for Regional Officers. That is, most functions can be used freely, but some Border Controls, such as ejecting nations, are harder to use.
- Regional Officers retain power until dismissed.
- The Delegacy can be given a specific set of powers, rather than (as is the case today) being either powerless or fully executive. For example, a region could set their Delegacy to grant authority over Border Control but not Appearance.
See also: R/D Summit "Regional Officers" discussion thread
FAQ
First bunch of answers to questions.
More to come.
by Guy » Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:29 pm
[violet] wrote:Never underestimate the ability of admin to do nothing.
by Zemnaya Svoboda » Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:30 pm
[violet] wrote:Alustrian wrote: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.
by Cormac Stark » Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:34 pm
[violet] wrote: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.
by Bitely » Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:38 pm
by Saxe-Wittenburg » Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:39 pm
Guy wrote:Okay, let's go back to basics.
R/D's issue is that update defending is impossible, because precision-invading is possible.
Update defending will only be possible, once precision-jumping is impossible.
This is what we've been saying for three bloody years, and let me remind you that that thread was the catalyst for your stinking Summit.
A summit which, three years later, has yet to see one change to fix R/D.
Exasperated? Incredulous? Foaming? You bet I am.
Go back to the drawing board, and come up with a serious response. Until then, Admin, this whole thing a joke.
by Cora II » Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:54 pm
Guy wrote:Okay, let's go back to basics.
R/D's issue is that update defending is impossible, because precision-invading is possible.
Update defending will only be possible, once precision-jumping is impossible.
This is what we've been saying for three bloody years, and let me remind you that that thread was the catalyst for your stinking Summit.
A summit which, three years later, has yet to see one change to fix R/D.
Exasperated? Incredulous? Foaming? You bet I am.
Go back to the drawing board, and come up with a serious response. Until then, Admin, this whole thing a joke.
by Paffnia » Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:55 pm
by [violet] » Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:07 pm
Cormac Stark wrote:How many years will we have to wait for the code to fix the problems we all know are going to occur?
by The Freehold of Caelton » Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:11 pm
by [violet] » Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:13 pm
The Freehold of Caelton wrote:So heres my main question: Where will the thing that allows me, as the delegate of a founderless region, to create new officers?
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:14 pm
The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258
Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative
by Cormac Stark » Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:15 pm
[violet] wrote:And I do appreciate that to many people, they see a really obvious, specific problem, which can easily be solved by removing part of the feature. And they may be 100% right about that, and we end up doing it, but we're talking about a feature that's going into 17,600 regions and will probably be used in thousands of different ways. Before we take away a lot of ways that we haven't even thought of yet, and which may turn out to be pretty great, we're going to give that a chance.
by Sovreignry » Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:16 pm
by [violet] » Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:17 pm
Paffnia wrote:For clarification, does the Communications power include the ability to send mass TGs to the region as well as alter the welcome TG?
Paffnia wrote:And where does RMB-post suppression fall under?
by [violet] » Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:19 pm
Saxe-Wittenburg wrote:what happens if the WA Delegate loses their position as WA Delegate, and there is no new delegate for some time. Do the nations who are appointed to those positions maintain their positions, or do they lose them when there is no WA Delegate?
by Saxe-Wittenburg » Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:21 pm
[violet] wrote:Saxe-Wittenburg wrote:what happens if the WA Delegate loses their position as WA Delegate, and there is no new delegate for some time. Do the nations who are appointed to those positions maintain their positions, or do they lose them when there is no WA Delegate?
They retain their positions.
by Zemnaya Svoboda » Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:21 pm
by Alustrian » Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:22 pm
[violet] wrote:Even when the implications are pretty clear, like the increased difficulty of executing liberations, it will still take time to see it through and establish what sort of problems we have and what it may be worth giving up to solve.
by Cora II » Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:24 pm
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:25 pm
Zemnaya Svoboda wrote:[violet] wrote:Border Control.
That seems unfortunate.
Democratic (and other) regions being potentially quite cautious about granting Border Control powers, this would leave RMBs hardly more moderated than they are now
(At least as compared to the improvement we could see if those powers were decoupled.)
The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258
Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Card Cleaver, Federation Of Ochima, Hyperwolf, Sirian
Advertisement