The Process of Refounding

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

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

Right. Because you took an aside in another thread out of context and decided to pull [violet] in yet another direction to address yet another nifty tool to add to the game. Not everyone takes everything anyone posts on a message forum literally. Just because an admin says she hasn't seen a good suggestion yet doesn't mean she immediately wants to see one. Constantly diverting admin resources in this manner is a good way to assure nothing gets done.

[Sedgistan]

I still prefer my option, as it'd probably require less coding, wouldn't need a WA resolution type to accompany it, and it wouldn't be so easy for raiders to take advantage of:

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.

It'd still be hard for large regions to re-found, but it'd eliminate the risks of it being hijacked, which I think was the original complaint.

[[violet]]

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?

If you'd like to propose a manual system, please actually come up with rules for it. It's easy enough to say, "Mods should appoint Founders in rare cases when everyone in the region agrees to it and they're proper natives." Everyone can agree with that. The hard part is devising the actual system: How long do you have to be resident before the region is considered to "belong" to you? (And no, we don't currently record that.) What percentage of the region needs to agree? How do they express this? Which regions qualify for refounding--if it's all of them, that's too much workload for a manual system; if it's only a few of them, what's the limiting criteria?

As is, there is an egregious imbalance of power and control in favor of raiders vs folks who don't wish to get involved

I don't agree with this. We've done a lot to make life harder for invaders over the last 6 years and not much to make it easier.

[Unibot]

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

Right. Because you took an aside in another thread out of context and decided to pull [violet] in yet another direction to address yet another nifty tool to add to the game. Not everyone takes everything anyone posts on a message forum literally. Just because an admin says she hasn't seen a good suggestion yet doesn't mean she immediately wants to see one. Constantly diverting admin resources in this manner is a good way to assure nothing gets done.

My bad, I suppose.

[Northrop-Grumman]

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

Right. Because you took an aside in another thread out of context and decided to pull [violet] in yet another direction to address yet another nifty tool to add to the game. Not everyone takes everything anyone posts on a message forum literally. Just because an admin says she hasn't seen a good suggestion yet doesn't mean she immediately wants to see one. Constantly diverting admin resources in this manner is a good way to assure nothing gets done.

My bad, I suppose.

Considering she said...

But if you would like to start a thread (or revive an old one) with suggestions, I will certainly read it.

...and has been responding regularly to this thread, I don't really think there's a problem...

And thank you, Unibot, for getting on the ball and creating this. It's best to get this going when things are already fresh on people's minds, and to pull it out of that already bogged down thread. (Plus, I haven't the time this week to dedicate to suggestions and the like)

[The Most Glorious Hack]

If you'd like to propose a manual system, please actually come up with rules for it.

Didn't we do that when Founders went in? Wasn't part of the deal that if they didn't do it during that window they were out of luck?

[Mousebumples]

If you'd like to propose a manual system, please actually come up with rules for it.

Didn't we do that when Founders went in? Wasn't part of the deal that if they didn't do it during that window they were out of luck?

What about a setup that works like that? There could be, say, 2 windows each year (i.e. every 6 months) of a set duration (perhaps a month - i.e. January and July) where regions are able to apply for a new founder via a GHR.

Suggested criteria:

• Must have been without a founder for 28 days.
• GHR must be filed by the WA Delegate
• The Delegate is recommended to name themselves as the WA founder, but may name another nation if that other nation files a GHR as well to confirm their willingness to serve in this role
• The new Founder must have been a resident of the region in question for a set period of time (perhaps 1 year or longer?); or, if the region has been in existence for less than that period of time, the Founder must have been a resident for, say, at least 75% of the total length of time. (This would also apply to the WA Delegate, if they wanted to name themselves as a found - and that should prevent raiders from claiming a Founder-ship via this method, unless they want to invest a significant period of time.)
• An announcement (similar to the one outlined by Unibot above) is placed on the Region Page, notifying other nations in that region that a ReFounding has been requested.
• Allow other nations in the region to file "objections" to the ReFounding. If a set percentage (my personal vote is 33%, but that's certainly negotiable) of nations within a region object to the ReFounding, it would be canceled; however, another ReFounding attempt would be allowed during the next "ReFounding Period." Nations would not be require to voice their support.

Some criteria should probably be set to determine what sorts of nations are allowed to object. Having one objecting nation create 20+ puppets to "voice their objection" shouldn't be taken seriously; having 20+ nations from other locations move to that region to object is probably also not a smart idea - unless a new SC proposal category would be created. And, again, this may be where having a relatively firm definition of native may be handy.

In this case, for a definition of what nations will have their objections counted, what about: A nation that has been a resident of the region in question since before the region was left without a founder; or, if the region has been founder-less for over a year; a nation that has been a resident of that region for at least 6 months. A limit of one vote per IP address will be counted for each region.

Again, the numbers are absolutely tentative, but this is a framework that I think might work out pretty well - presuming I haven't left out anything obvious.

Thanks for your consideration,

[Charlotte Ryberg]

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?

A delegate has to be elected to trigger the refounding process then. Region Control privileges revert to delegate in regions without a founder.

Suggested criteria:

* Must have been without a founder for 28 days.
* GHR must be filed by the WA Delegate
* The Delegate is recommended to name themselves as the WA founder, but may name another nation if that other nation files a GHR as well to confirm their willingness to serve in this role
* The new Founder must have been a resident of the region in question for a set period of time (perhaps 1 year or longer?); or, if the region has been in existence for less than that period of time, the Founder must have been a resident for, say, at least 75% of the total length of time. (This would also apply to the WA Delegate, if they wanted to name themselves as a found - and that should prevent raiders from claiming a Founder-ship via this method, unless they want to invest a significant period of time.)
* An announcement (similar to the one outlined by Unibot above) is placed on the Region Page, notifying other nations in that region that a ReFounding has been requested.
* Allow other nations in the region to file "objections" to the ReFounding. If a set percentage (my personal vote is 33%, but that's certainly negotiable) of nations within a region object to the ReFounding, it would be canceled; however, another ReFounding attempt would be allowed during the next "ReFounding Period." Nations would not be require to voice their support.

I am a bit concerned about the complexity involved with the process. I am also concerned it may defeat the purpose of region invasion game other regions take part in.

For interest, here is my idea. It may work or not, but it is simple:

• Any delegate or founder may nominate a nation for foundership and trigger the refounding process regardless of WFE control levels;
• The process can be cancelled within 14 days by the delegate or founder;
• After 14 days grace period without objection, the nominee, active or not, becomes the founder (in the 5AM GMT update, and well, inactivity is a small price to pay for simplicity of process);
• The process is automatically cancelled if: the said region ceases to exist; or if the founder is inactive, and there is no delegate in charge (such algorithms are executed before the region itself is updated or deleted).
• Feeder or Warzone regions can't be refound! (no need to ask)

In my opinion automatic system would be less hassle. And active founders will have no trouble with their control as they still have the veto.

[Czardas]

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.

Instead of a time limit, how about an influence cost? Much like most other things a delegate can do.

No waiting period, but the delegate will have to have been in charge of the region for a fairly long time (say, 100+ days) in order to accumulate enough influence to refound it, and will have had to not be kicking out lots of people (especially longtime residents) immediately prior.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

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.

Instead of a time limit, how about an influence cost? Much like most other things a delegate can do.

No waiting period, but the delegate will have to have been in charge of the region for a fairly long time (say, 100+ days) in order to accumulate enough influence to refound it, and will have had to not be kicking out lots of people (especially longtime residents) immediately prior.

In my opinion the fun would slow down. I respect the comments from both sides but what about those who want to take back control from raiders like Macedon, while giving the other side a chance to veto?

[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.

Instead of a time limit, how about an influence cost? Much like most other things a delegate can do.

No waiting period, but the delegate will have to have been in charge of the region for a fairly long time (say, 100+ days) in order to accumulate enough influence to refound it, and will have had to not be kicking out lots of people (especially longtime residents) immediately prior.

Are you familiar with Macedon? Influence was put in place to stop regional destroyers, and it ended up legitimizing them. Giving them an automated system for refounding if they had enough influence would put the ball in Macedon's court, thats their style of raid, wait.. wait.. wait, and then strike like a tiger. Killing a region with one quick, irreversible swoop.

[The Most Glorious Hack]

Are you familiar with Macedon?

...no?

[Unibot]

Are you familiar with Macedon?

...no?

The public outcries that lead to the formation of a liberation category, were chiefly based around the actions of Macedon, an invader group that would sit in regions for a long, long period of time to accumulate influence. Then, they'd swoop their endos in, endorse the plant, and put up a secret password as soon as they became delegate -- holding the region forever as a trophy, after kicking all the natives out.

If refounding was based solely on influence without any transition period, Macedon or a similar group could use the same exploitation to destroy regions.

[Martyrdoom]

Are you familiar with Macedon?

...no?

The public outcries that lead to the formation of a liberation category, were chiefly based around the actions of Macedon, an invader group that would sit in regions for a long, long period of time to accumulate influence. Then, they'd swoop their endos in, endorse the plant, and put up a secret password as soon as they became delegate -- holding the region forever as a trophy, after kicking all the natives out.

If refounding was based solely on influence without any transition period, Macedon or a similar group could use the same exploitation to destroy regions.

Is refounding a region the same as destroying it to you?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

It is in my opinion that restrictions based on influence should be ignored for the purpose of this suggested feature. It will equal the balance with the raiding/defending gaming if influence was not a criteria, to offer a fair opportunity to both sides.

[Martyrdoom]

It is in my opinion that restrictions based on influence should be ignored for the purpose of this suggested feature. It will equal the balance with the raiding/defending gaming if influence was not a criteria, to offer a fair opportunity to both sides.

At present there's fair opportunity for both sides (or anyone else) to refound a region. Or am I missing something?

[Unibot]

Are you familiar with Macedon?

...no?

The public outcries that lead to the formation of a liberation category, were chiefly based around the actions of Macedon, an invader group that would sit in regions for a long, long period of time to accumulate influence. Then, they'd swoop their endos in, endorse the plant, and put up a secret password as soon as they became delegate -- holding the region forever as a trophy, after kicking all the natives out.

If refounding was based solely on influence without any transition period, Macedon or a similar group could use the same exploitation to destroy regions.

Is refounding a region the same as destroying it to you?

You clearly never read Liberate Land of the Liberals, did you?

[Martyrdoom]

Are you familiar with Macedon?

...no?

The public outcries that lead to the formation of a liberation category, were chiefly based around the actions of Macedon, an invader group that would sit in regions for a long, long period of time to accumulate influence. Then, they'd swoop their endos in, endorse the plant, and put up a secret password as soon as they became delegate -- holding the region forever as a trophy, after kicking all the natives out.

If refounding was based solely on influence without any transition period, Macedon or a similar group could use the same exploitation to destroy regions.

Is refounding a region the same as destroying it to you?

You clearly never read Liberate Land of the Liberals, did you?

So you do believe refounding a region constitutes destroying it?

[Unibot]

Are you familiar with Macedon?

...no?

The public outcries that lead to the formation of a liberation category, were chiefly based around the actions of Macedon, an invader group that would sit in regions for a long, long period of time to accumulate influence. Then, they'd swoop their endos in, endorse the plant, and put up a secret password as soon as they became delegate -- holding the region forever as a trophy, after kicking all the natives out.

If refounding was based solely on influence without any transition period, Macedon or a similar group could use the same exploitation to destroy regions.

Is refounding a region the same as destroying it to you?

You clearly never read Liberate Land of the Liberals, did you?

So you do believe refounding a region constitutes destroying it?

According to the resolution's definitions, it depends on the circumstances of the refounding.

[Martyrdoom]

Are you familiar with Macedon?

...no?

The public outcries that lead to the formation of a liberation category, were chiefly based around the actions of Macedon, an invader group that would sit in regions for a long, long period of time to accumulate influence. Then, they'd swoop their endos in, endorse the plant, and put up a secret password as soon as they became delegate -- holding the region forever as a trophy, after kicking all the natives out.

If refounding was based solely on influence without any transition period, Macedon or a similar group could use the same exploitation to destroy regions.

Is refounding a region the same as destroying it to you?

You clearly never read Liberate Land of the Liberals, did you?

So you do believe refounding a region constitutes destroying it?

According to the resolution's definitions, it depends on the circumstances of the refounding.

That just invites a double-standard.

[Kalibarr]

It's only destroying it if the defender majority doesn't like who does it.

/ raider rant

[Martyrdoom]

It's only destroying it if the defender majority doesn't like who does it.

/ raider rant

Exactly. Which is rather derelict.

[The Most Glorious Hack]

Politics?! In my nation-simulation game!?

[Oh my Days]

For a start, founderless regions are good! If we get rid of yet more of them, the remaining ones will be invaded much more often, which isn't good for them and isn't good for military gameplay either.

However, if you really did want to help n00bs refound, wouldn't it be a lot easier just to post a link to a guide in the FAQ? This would require absolutely no coding. If an automatic way was brought about, almost every middle and large region would refound and that really would kill raiding. Unless you have enough people to invade a feeder, you would be forced to stick to dead regions that no-one cares about.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

For a start, founderless regions are good! If we get rid of yet more of them, the remaining ones will be invaded much more often, which isn't good for them and isn't good for military gameplay either.

However, if you really did want to help n00bs refound, wouldn't it be a lot easier just to post a link to a guide in the FAQ? This would require absolutely no coding. If an automatic way was brought about, almost every middle and large region would refound and that really would kill raiding. Unless you have enough people to invade a feeder, you would be forced to stick to dead regions that no-one cares about.

GHR would have been the most simplest option but I am concerned that the process would be very complex. I also doubt that if the rule applied to founderless regions only minus feeders, it may not solve the Macedon problem.