The Process of Refounding

[Unibot]

But the question I'm really getting at, is if Haven were to refound and someone were to come by during the process and snatch it away, what recourse do they have to regain it? From what I've seen said here, it appears to be none. Why not?

You are correct, it's none. The best answer I can give you to "Why not?" is that I have never seen a proposal for a refounding system that sufficiently inspired me with its bounty of benefits and absence of horrific loopholes allowing raiders to seize Founderships while requiring mods to make judgments about nativity in the face of howling accusations of bias from players, to code it. But if you would like to start a thread (or revive an old one) with suggestions, I will certainly read it.

I will attempt to map out a way to do so.

The Process of Refounding

Delegates in regions without founders may click on the refounding button in their administrative tools for their region, once they've typed the name of the potential new founder, and clicked the button, that founder is locked in.

The automatic refound with that founder will happen in 28 days (symbolic of 28 days for the death of a nation), unless any of the following are true...

• The delegate's endorsers do not support them anymore, and the delegate is unseated.
  
• The region is raided.
  
• The delegate who ordered for the refound is for some reason, unseated as delegate.
  
• The World Assembly passes a "Mediation" proposal which would render a refounding, null and void.
  
• The World Assembly has previously passed a Mediation proposal for their region, and it has yet to have been repealed.

Passwords would be allowed to be used in the process of refounding.



Once the button is clicked, the region has a caption at the top of their page, declaring that they are refounding, and how many days remains until the refound happens. The period of 28 days is a transitional period, which I feel previous suggestions lacked.

If 28 days passes, at the update, the caption is removed, and the founder becomes a founder.

Simple as that.

[Sedgistan]

And why wouldn't raiders be able to use this too? I don't think the WA resolution type you suggested would be enough protection.

[Unibot]

And why wouldn't raiders be able to use this too? I don't think the WA resolution type you suggested would be enough protection.

Well, if defenders can't get in there in 28 days, I'll assume these raiders are using a password?

So that means a liberation is necessary, or otherwise a more direct route of attack, a mediation proposal, baring them from refounding.

It would be enough protection, I think. Raiders could use it, but thats with four weeks notice, and once we have a split voting floors, we'd be able to get a proposal up-to-vote much quicker.

[Sedgistan]

Invaders can pile 50+ nations into a region fairly easily - and thats simply impossible to liberate these days. Smartzez in Free Thought had 40+ endorsements for well over 4 weeks. Whether a password was in place or not would be irrelevant.

If this was done, I'd prefer that the delegate had to have been in place for 100+ days - it might make it harder to do, but it'd make it far less open to abuse.

An alternative would be to simply let 1 nation regions have their resident nation to become founder without having to leave the region & let it CTE. It'd still require removing nearly all nations, but if it was used with a secret password, it'd mean re-foundings couldn't be hijacked.

[Unibot]

Invaders can pile 50+ nations into a region fairly easily - and thats simply impossible to liberate these days. Smartzez in Free Thought had 40+ endorsements for well over 4 weeks. Whether a password was in place or not would be irrelevant.

If this was done, I'd prefer that the delegate had to have been in place for 100+ days - it might make it harder to do, but it'd make it far less open to abuse.

Those situations are what the Mediation proposal would be for, you'd be able to knock the refound tool out of their hands, and bar them from trying it again. After that, it becomes another case of passworded regions just like any other one. You could wait a while, propose a liberation, and then send in defenders when the time is appropriate.

If there is no password, well then.. it becomes even simpler.

[Mousebumples]

I know that there have been special circumstances in which the mods have re-granted long-founderless regions a founder. The specific example that comes to mind, for me, is Texas, with NewTexas.

I have no idea regarding the details of how that was worked out - and I'm sure it was a special circumstance. However, would it be possible to share the criteria that were used? (in that case, or in others, if they are not otherwise available/buried on Jolt) I don't know if this is a circumstance that the mods would be willing to evaluate on a case-by-case basis, presuming that a base criteria was met? (without a founder for a set period of time, delegate/other active nation for a set period of time, etc.)

I think that the criteria listed by Unibot in the OP is overly simplistic when it comes to refounder-ing. I've had CTE'd founders return from Lazarus in some regions; as such, I don't think that 28 days is sufficient time to allow for refounder-ing. Why should a previous founder nation return to the game (after an absence due to whatever RL issue likely arose) to find that they are no longer the founder?

Additionally, to some extent, it is the responsibility of nations in a region to do what they can to maintain the existence of their founder's nation. A founder who has lost interest in the game (or who no longer has the time to play) may be willing to turn over the password to their nation to a different nation to use as a puppet. Or, as is the current circumstance in Monkey Island, when security measures necessitated a refounding, I put a puppet in place as the founder. In the event that I am unable to continue on as delegate (and puppet-founder), I will then hand over the information on the puppet nation to my successor.

*checks text* Uh, hopefully that was logical?

[Unibot]

I think that the criteria listed by Unibot in the OP is overly simplistic when it comes to refounder-ing. I've had CTE'd founders return from Lazarus in some regions; as such, I don't think that 28 days is sufficient time to allow for refounder-ing. Why should a previous founder nation return to the game (after an absence due to whatever RL issue likely arose) to find that they are no longer the founder?

Maybe the founder would have to be dead for longer, but the transitional period should still be held as 28 days.

So after lets say, after, I dunno know, three months, the period in which most nations become long-titled, a re-found would become an option for a region.

Or maybe the transitional period should be longer? 28 days just seemed reasonable.

[Mousebumples]

The automatic refound with that founder will happen in 28 days (symbolic of 28 days for the death of a nation), unless any of the following are true...

• The delegate's endorsers do not support them anymore, and the delegate is unseated.
  
• The region is raided.
  
• The delegate who ordered for the refound is for some reason, unseated as delegate.
  
• The World Assembly passes a "Mediation" proposal which would render a refounding, null and void.
  
• The World Assembly has previously passed a Mediation proposal for their region, and it has yet to have been repealed.

A few specific comments here - Item 1 and 3 are redundant. Secondly, 4 and 5 are mostly redundant.

Again, given my personal circumstances, this doesn't affect me or my nations personally, it's hard for me to get terribly worked up over this circumstance. Additionally, not that it wouldn't be doable from a coding standpoint, but I would think that it would be simpler to set up an unofficial "apply to the mods for a new founder" process with set and explicit guidelines/minimum requirements.

While this process (as proposed) seems interesting, I don't know that it should be a priority, in terms of game improvements.

[[violet]]

The Process of Refounding

Ahhh, knew I could count on you, Unibot.

I think it's a good suggestion, particularly with the waiting period to reduce the possibility of invaders refounding. My thoughts:

The automatic refound with that founder will happen in 28 days (symbolic of 28 days for the death of a nation), unless any of the following are true...

• The region is raided.

What does that mean? How is the game supposed to tell whether a region is being raided? Is it even necessary, given the other requirement that the Delegate not be unseated?

• The World Assembly passes a "Mediation" proposal which would render a refounding, null and void.

That radically increases the amount of coding required.

Simple as that.

It's not that simple, from a coding perspective. It'd be a medium-sized job. Take out the Mediation proposal and it's more feasible, and if Delegates could only nominate themselves it'd be more practical again.

[Mousebumples]

• The World Assembly passes a "Mediation" proposal which would render a refounding, null and void.

That radically increases the amount of coding required.

Would it be possible to allow for a "liberation" to serve as a "mediation" measure in this regard? i.e. Passed liberations would both remove passwords from regions and/or end a pending refounding process? (no ideas if this would still be a fair amount of coding)

[[violet]]

Well the other thing is it violates the principle that the WA has no authority over Founders. I'd prefer a resolution that lets the WA boot out a member (thus preventing a Delegate from completing a Refounding) than something Founder-specific. Although I'm not sure either is necessary.

I guess it can be argued that allowing Delegates to appoint Founders at all blurs that line too.

[Unibot]

The automatic refound with that founder will happen in 28 days (symbolic of 28 days for the death of a nation), unless any of the following are true...

• The region is raided.

What does that mean? How is the game supposed to tell whether a region is being raided? Is it even necessary, given the other requirement that the Delegate not be unseated?

I meant, if the reign of the delegate who initiated the refounding ends for whatever reason, the refounding does not happen.

Thus including.. raids, internal conflicts and natural declines in endos, or any other occurrence resulting in the delegate being removed from power.

• The World Assembly passes a "Mediation" proposal which would render a refounding, null and void.

That radically increases the amount of coding required.

Really? All that Mediation proposals would do is knock out the refounding, and bar the region from being able to refound ever again?

I wouldn't have thought that would have been any harder to code than liberations. But okay, you're the boss...

Simple as that.

It's not that simple, from a coding perspective. It'd be a medium-sized job. Take out the Mediation proposal and it's more feasible, and if Delegates could only nominate themselves it'd be more practical again.

Hhhm.. I think the Mediation proposal is needed, refounding is the ultimate 'exploitation' of the World Assembly's influence, its a delegate using the power of the World Assembly to claim ultimate power over a region. I think that sort of power needs a failsafe security plan for the Security Council.

As for Delegate Selectivity, that might be a good idea, otherwise you'll have founders who might not actually want to be founders. In fact thats a very good point, you bring up, violet.

Thanks for listening,
Uni

[Unibot]

Well the other thing is it violates the principle that the WA has no authority over Founders. I'd prefer a resolution that lets the WA boot out a member (thus preventing a Delegate from completing a Refounding) than something Founder-specific. Although I'm not sure either is necessary.

I guess it can be argued that allowing Delegates to appoint Founders at all blurs that line too.

It is the power of the World Assembly that is granting such a prerogative such as refounding, thus it is within the World Assembly's power to take away such a prerogative of member nations.

[Kalibarr]

it is as in they determine who the founder is and who isn't, I'm against the whole as the WA should have no direct way to appoint a founder. True they are essential to the process already, (passwording/banjecting ect.) but to give delegates a direct way to become a founder,through the WA it's self is not something I want to see happen. Sooner or later if we continue on this route it will be impossible to play without the WA, if we keep giving them tools to alter game mechanics the term WA membership is optional will change to "it's needed to run a region".

[Unibot]

it is as in they determine who the founder is and who isn't, I'm against the whole as the WA should have no direct way to appoint a founder. True they are essential to the process already, (passwording/banjecting ect.) but to give delegates a direct way to become a founder,through the WA it's self is not something I want to see happen. Sooner or later if we continue on this route it will be impossible to play without the WA, if we keep giving them tools to alter game mechanics the term WA membership is optional will change to "it's needed to run a region".

Manual refounding already exists, and it would still exist. Refounds are directly related to the World Assembly, and occasionally, caused by an abuse of the WA's power. This implementation streamlines the process, and makes its safer for natives.

[Kalibarr]

Why should the WA care?

you can re-found already and liberations should technically kill of "abusive" refounds

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Alright, the admins' workload is immense as it is. They still haven't finished making over the WA, as they promised to do, and they've also mentioned redoing the telegram system, on top of figuring a way to recycle old names without creating any unnecessary complications. Why do you insist on constantly dumping more onto their plate?

[Unibot]

Alright, the admins' workload is immense as it is. They still haven't finished making over the WA, as they promised to do, and they've also mentioned redoing the telegram system, on top of figuring a way to recycle old names without creating any unnecessary complications. Why do you insist on constantly dumping more onto their plate?

Violet asked for a suggested method, I obliged. Dah.

Also Kalibarr, liberations aren't a perfect attack against refounds, you know that, if New Earth hadn't left Land of the Liberals a refound could have been possible, remember they had a two days before the resolution passed.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

On the concern of a re-founding effort getting hijacked:

Would it be possible to file a GH request listing the current/accepted members of a region by the person heading up the re-founding, accompanied with the in-system screen shot be sufficient to prove who the region belonged to? Surely the system notes how long a player has been in a region for comparison, yes? I don't know that any coding would need to be involved, and if the re-founding went off without a hitch, nothing would need to be done about it.

Having been told that it's just 'tough luck' unless something can be proposed that works, I think people need some sort of avenue they can pursue to try and protect themselves. As is, there is an egregious imbalance of power and control in favor of raiders vs folks who don't wish to get involved, and it really ought to be addressed somehow.

It is harder to suggest a viable solution when I'm not entirely sure how the whole system and the programmed mechanics work to begin with.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I would make that a 14 day refounding process, but allow it to be cancelled by the delegate and founder. Turning on should be available to delegates only, regardless of whether the founder has chosen to allow Delegate other Regional control privileges.

EDIT: Also, allow founders to trigger the process too as some may wish to do this as a result of swapping their main nations.

[Mousebumples]

EDIT: Also, allow founders to trigger the process too as some may wish to do this as a result of swapping their main nations.

If there is no founder (an thus a "refounding" is necessary), how can a founder trigger the process? If there is no longer a founder, how could they presume to be involved in this process?

[Flibbleites]

EDIT: Also, allow founders to trigger the process too as some may wish to do this as a result of swapping their main nations.

If there is no founder (an thus a "refounding" is necessary), how can a founder trigger the process? If there is no longer a founder, how could they presume to be involved in this process?

By coming back?

[Mousebumples]

EDIT: Also, allow founders to trigger the process too as some may wish to do this as a result of swapping their main nations.

If there is no founder (an thus a "refounding" is necessary), how can a founder trigger the process? If there is no longer a founder, how could they presume to be involved in this process?

By coming back?

Valid. However, I would think that an even better approach would be that if the founder returns during the "pending" period, the refounding would be automatically canceled. I don't feel comfortable letting the WA (or ... whoever we're deeming to be "in charge" of this process) replace a still active founder of a region. That's my two cents, anyhow.

[Flibbleites]

EDIT: Also, allow founders to trigger the process too as some may wish to do this as a result of swapping their main nations.

If there is no founder (an thus a "refounding" is necessary), how can a founder trigger the process? If there is no longer a founder, how could they presume to be involved in this process?

By coming back?

Valid. However, I would think that an even better approach would be that if the founder returns during the "pending" period, the refounding would be automatically canceled. I don't feel comfortable letting the WA (or ... whoever we're deeming to be "in charge" of this process) replace a still active founder of a region. That's my two cents, anyhow.

Well, CR's suggestion was that the founder have the ability to cancel a refounding.

[Sdaeriji]

I think that the criteria listed by Unibot in the OP is overly simplistic when it comes to refounder-ing. I've had CTE'd founders return from Lazarus in some regions; as such, I don't think that 28 days is sufficient time to allow for refounder-ing. Why should a previous founder nation return to the game (after an absence due to whatever RL issue likely arose) to find that they are no longer the founder?

Maybe allow the founder an extended period after the refounding from which he/she may reclaim foundership? Perhaps a year or something similarly long to ensure that any short-term RL issues would result in a person permanently losing foundership, but not so long (or indefinite) such that the new founder constantly has to be concerned that they'll suddenly no longer be the founder one morning.