[Suggestion] Spawn/Respawn in all GCRs

[Unibot III]

I was replying to a side-discussion which seemed to be arguing in favor of larger feeders specifically getting reduced inflow.

If there is a real feedback effect (and I think there is) then to call it a penalization is a stubborn exaggeration, rather it's a matter of fair, competitive play. Evening fields shouldn't be rejected as penalties for performance if they will in effect improve competitiveness (and thus improve retention efforts in all the GCRs.) That's the line between "good" and "bad" equality, in short.

Having one "too big to fail" GCRs and a handful of considerably sleepier GCRs isn't an optimal end scenario and I do think administrators need to sometimes consider the quality / gameplay of the "ends" as much as they do the integrity of the process used to reach that end. Otherwise, it's all a bit boring.

Edit: I thought I had read "where should I start?" as opposed to "why should we start?" so I'm sorry if this response reads a bit snippy but the point is the same.

[Flanderlion]

Killing several birds with one stone:

• Reducing the over-sized feeders (bad for technical reasons)
• Diluting GCR influence
• Giving a more lasting/reliable opt-out from being invaded for those that want it
• Reducing messy re-foundings, which wipe regional history
• Including a significant enough incentive to ensure a sizeable stock of "invadable" regions remains
• Creating a more "consensual" R/D game
• Giving the SC a new tool

Okay, thanks.

Well I feel like this thread needs a reminder that this is not entirely about the GCRs, Most of that list has nothing to do with them. Maybe this is because their members are more vocal or influential, but even if this is slightly unfair to TNP who appears to work very hard for their powerful status, the benefits to the majority of the game that isn't in a GCR seems to outweigh that.

It is kind of about GCRs. Look at the title, and every suggestion in the thread which has revolved around GCRs. Bar the over-sized Feeders, which is a valid point, everything else doesn't need to involve GCRs at all.

Autocracy/Founder succession (with the right penalties) would solve 5/7 of Sedge's list (or really 4/7, should the SC really be involved in it?). The idea of redistributing nations from regions designed with them in mind, to a select few (depending on how strict the requirements are) UCR regions at best doesn't impact other older nations. But to new nations, they will be dumped in UCRs, overwhelmed, and quit. It happens in Feeders, but bar a few select UCRs (which unless we were limiting the redistribution to 2 or 3 regions), Feeders are better with dealing with new nations. The idea would be detrimental to GCRs, the majority of UCRs, the majority of new players (for some it might work out better), and would cause issues with UCRs having too much influence as well as GCRs.

If somehow admins have a gun held to their head, as well as a knife held to their childrens throats, and decide to go ahead with the idea, all 3 options still seem like a flat out upgrade from status quo.

Democracy turning Founders to non-executive is a fairly good trade off. And for regions that have already lost their founders, the number of WA's (or as I hoped percentage so people don't just go for a certain number) in the region should be a good enough requirement to make Democracy more balanced. So Democracy, while an upgrade from the status quo for certain founderless regions, is likely the best balanced one of the three if it came out tomorrow. They should receive GCR influence to make it not a straight upgrade for a founderless region. If they ceased from qualifying for the Democracy requirements, they should go automatically to Oligarchy (but having lost their founder's executive powers permanently).

Oligarchy is the best of both worlds option, gives security of a Founder yet also gives free nations. I'm not sure how to balance this one, except the number of WA's (or as I hoped percentage so people don't just go for a certain number) in the region should still be a decent number, but not as much as Democracy. Also Democracy should receive significantly more than Oligarchy (as previously suggested) so it's more a token rather than game changing for Oligarchy regions. They should also receive GCR influence.

Autocracy. This one is a puzzle. Each founder can appoint one successor - if the founder dies and the successor isn't alive, it isn't passed down and only when the founder revives does the region cease being founderless. Obviously if the founder dies and the successor is alive the successor gets the region. The one who handed it down shouldn't get it back when/if they revive unless the successor (who is now the founder) appoints the old founder as his successor and CTE's. But penalties wise, it should be primarily recruitment based, as the other two are sacrificing security (partially) for recruitment. Possibly increased stamp costs, and API/manual cool downs dramatically increased. Also - just throwing the idea out there, having to have a password on the region (could be public, and the thing written on the WFE, just making it more difficult/more steps for a new nation to join). Obviously only founders could appoint successors (not sure how the whole Custodian thing would work this - if it even happens).

[Sedgistan]

Autocracy/Founder succession (with the right penalties) would solve 5/7 of Sedge's list (or really 4/7, should the SC really be involved in it?).

I was actually listing what Autocracy/Oligarchy/Democracy achieves, i.e. all 7 of those. The SC involvement part has already been discussed - if you're questioning it, you need to give some reasons why. The justification for having it involved was to prevent the "game over" scenario of invaders changing a region from Democracy -> Autocracy being too easy.

But to new nations, they will be dumped in UCRs, overwhelmed, and quit. It happens in Feeders, but bar a few select UCRs (which unless we were limiting the redistribution to 2 or 3 regions), Feeders are better with dealing with new nations. The idea would be detrimental to GCRs, the majority of UCRs, the majority of new players (for some it might work out better), and would cause issues with UCRs having too much influence as well as GCRs.

You're going to have to back those statements up with something - reasoning or evidence would certainly help. Why/how are feeders better at dealing with new nations? Because they've been doing it already - well that would quickly apply to other regions too. Because they're "neutral" - that claim has already been shown as a sham. For UCRs to qualify for nations, they're going to have to be active, and have put some graft into building their region. We're not talking about dropping new nations into every inactive puppet dump.

[Goddess Relief Office]

But to new nations, they will be dumped in UCRs, overwhelmed, and quit. It happens in Feeders, but bar a few select UCRs (which unless we were limiting the redistribution to 2 or 3 regions), Feeders are better with dealing with new nations. The idea would be detrimental to GCRs, the majority of UCRs, the majority of new players (for some it might work out better), and would cause issues with UCRs having too much influence as well as GCRs.

You're going to have to back those statements up with something - reasoning or evidence would certainly help. Why/how are feeders better at dealing with new nations? Because they've been doing it already - well that would quickly apply to other regions too. Because they're "neutral" - that claim has already been shown as a sham. For UCRs to qualify for nations, they're going to have to be active, and have put some graft into building their region. We're not talking about dropping new nations into every inactive puppet dump.

I'm in agreement with Sedge on this point.

I think when people think of GCRs, many of them think of TNP of today. But over the course of history there's been plenty of GCRs that's been less than active and nurturing to newbies.

~GRO~

[Flanderlion]

Autocracy/Founder succession (with the right penalties) would solve 5/7 of Sedge's list (or really 4/7, should the SC really be involved in it?).

I was actually listing what Autocracy/Oligarchy/Democracy achieves, i.e. all 7 of those. The SC involvement part has already been discussed - if you're questioning it, you need to give some reasons why. The justification for having it involved was to prevent the "game over" scenario of invaders changing a region from Democracy -> Autocracy being too easy.

But to new nations, they will be dumped in UCRs, overwhelmed, and quit. It happens in Feeders, but bar a few select UCRs (which unless we were limiting the redistribution to 2 or 3 regions), Feeders are better with dealing with new nations. The idea would be detrimental to GCRs, the majority of UCRs, the majority of new players (for some it might work out better), and would cause issues with UCRs having too much influence as well as GCRs.

You're going to have to back those statements up with something - reasoning or evidence would certainly help. Why/how are feeders better at dealing with new nations? Because they've been doing it already - well that would quickly apply to other regions too. Because they're "neutral" - that claim has already been shown as a sham. For UCRs to qualify for nations, they're going to have to be active, and have put some graft into building their region. We're not talking about dropping new nations into every inactive puppet dump.

I personally don't think a Democracy should ever be able to be turned into an Autocracy (or if it is, doesn't matter as only a Founder themselves should be able to appoint their successor.) Executive delegates after X amount of time should be able to turn a normal region into a Democracy or Oligarchy if they qualify for the requirements. Founders should be able to do the same.

I don't see that the Security Council should be the ones that pick whether a region can change categories, seems more a Founders thing. Raiders changing the region type to autocracy wouldn't change anything unless somehow they had access to the previous founder, which would make the issue with them changing founder less important.

What sort of regions would be large enough/active enough to qualify for Democracy/Oligarchy, and what would the division (if any) between the two requirements wise? Obviously the Sinkers/Catcher, Europeia, 10KI, Europe and any of the non puppet storages in the second page of the largest regions would qualify for Democracy. http://www.thenorthpacific.org/world_wa_counts.html - would all this list qualify for Democracy, or would it be only Oligarchy for some. Would Nazi Europa qualify to put new nations in...

The idea would be detrimental to Feeders due to less population, and therefore less activity in the regions.

The idea would be detrimental to the majority of UCRs because nations would spawn in their competitors, who would likely be less
willing to give up new nations than the Feeders are, and their slightly larger competitors would get free recruitment, and over time the slightly larger competitors will become far larger than the regions that are slightly below the cut off.

The idea would not be detrimental to Sinkers unless refounded nations were redistributed along with new nations. Otherwise, and assuming they'd qualify for new nations as part of Democracy, they'd benefit.

The idea would not be detrimental to the Catcher, because more nations would be founded in regions that would instantly banject them, therefore more population in TRR.

The majority of new players would have a far greater chance of being placed in a highly polarising environment (e.g. throwing new nations in NE or TCB), or a region that doesn't need new nations as much. Those sorts of regions who have founders are more likely to be trigger happy with the banhammer. In the NPO, we don't generally banject WA nations as much as an non-WA ones. In UCRs with founders we just banject any troublemakers, new nations that slightly annoy, or have a slightly questionable field, WA or not. TWP is the most liberal with the banhammer though.

Edit: Agree with Mouse
Edit 2: Don't agree with Mouse - reread

[Mousebumples]

You're going to have to back those statements up with something - reasoning or evidence would certainly help. Why/how are feeders better at dealing with new nations? Because they've been doing it already - well that would quickly apply to other regions too. Because they're "neutral" - that claim has already been shown as a sham. For UCRs to qualify for nations, they're going to have to be active, and have put some graft into building their region. We're not talking about dropping new nations into every inactive puppet dump.

I'm in agreement with Sedge on this point.

I think when people think of GCRs, many of them think of TNP of today. But over the course of history there's been plenty of GCRs that's been less than active and nurturing to newbies.

~GRO~

Heck think back to when TNP had been couped by Durk. You think it's "welcoming" for a newbie to be founded in one region and then find themselves in TRR the next day? Coups don't happen often in GCRs, but they happen more often there than in UCRs, don't they?

[Sedgistan]

I don't see that the Security Council should be the ones that pick whether a region can change categories, seems more a Founders thing. Raiders changing the region type to autocracy wouldn't change anything unless somehow they had access to the previous founder, which would make the issue with them changing founder less important.

My vision of SC involvement would be a proposal that puts a change of category on hold (indefinitely). So it's a veto on a region changing category, but you wouldn't be able to force a region from one to another.

What sort of regions would be large enough/active enough to qualify for Democracy/Oligarchy, and what would the division (if any) between the two requirements wise? Obviously the Sinkers/Catcher, Europeia, 10KI, Europe and any of the non puppet storages in the second page of the largest regions would qualify for Democracy. http://www.thenorthpacific.org/world_wa_counts.html - would all this list qualify for Democracy, or would it be only Oligarchy for some. Would Nazi Europa qualify to put new nations in...

It's very much up to debate. I like Eluvatar's simple WA-population requirement; it's an accurate representation of actual people involved in a region, and easy to measure. Violet preferred a more complicated, or at least obfuscated metric, so it couldn't be "gamed".

Would Nazi Europa qualify - if they met the requirement, then I guess so. I did raise it as a concern when we discussed this behind the scenes that this doesn't give a good impression to new players. Potentially this is also an SC-solved matter - a resolution category that blocks/throttles from receiving new nations. Anyhow, that may not be necessary. These types of regions have a tendency to be targeted for invasion, and also seem to lose their founders to mod-deletion at a higher rate than others; I would envisage most of them choosing the security of Autocracy.

The idea would be detrimental to Feeders due to less population, and therefore less activity in the regions.

Yes; intended.

The idea would be detrimental to the majority of UCRs because nations would spawn in their competitors, who would likely be less
willing to give up new nations than the Feeders are, and their slightly larger competitors would get free recruitment, and over time the slightly larger competitors will become far larger than the regions that are slightly below the cut off.

Disagree. Any region would still be able to recruit any nation. How easy it is to reach the requirement for spawning really depends on what metric we go for - but it would reward work/activity. It's no bad thing if more active, harder-working regions grow above neglected puppet dumps and the like.

The idea would not be detrimental to Sinkers unless refounded nations were redistributed along with new nations. Otherwise, and assuming they'd qualify for new nations as part of Democracy, they'd benefit.

I imagine they would be unaffected (i.e. left as they currently are) - GCRs wouldn't have the same status options as UCRs, as we want to define how GCRs work.

The idea would not be detrimental to the Catcher, because more nations would be founded in regions that would instantly banject them, therefore more population in TRR.

Disagree. Why would UCRs work to build up their region so it qualifies for new nations, as well as accepting a loss in security to achieve this, only to kick those nations?

The majority of new players would have a far greater chance of being placed in a highly polarising environment (e.g. throwing new nations in NE or TCB), or a region that doesn't need new nations as much. Those sorts of regions who have founders are more likely to be trigger happy with the banhammer. In the NPO, we don't generally banject WA nations as much as an non-WA ones. In UCRs with founders we just banject any troublemakers, new nations that slightly annoy, or have a slightly questionable field, WA or not. TWP is the most liberal with the banhammer though.

Edit: Agree with Mouse

I think Mouse was disagreeing with you:

Heck think back to when TNP had been couped by Durk. You think it's "welcoming" for a newbie to be founded in one region and then find themselves in TRR the next day? Coups don't happen often in GCRs, but they happen more often there than in UCRs, don't they?

She's saying that GCRs are less stable, and more likely to have polarising incidents than UCRs.

I'm of a different view, actually, that turning up in the middle of a coup - for the types of nations likely to stick around - is actually more likely to grab your interest. It beats answering a few issues and wondering "what next?"

[Flanderlion]

I don't see that the Security Council should be the ones that pick whether a region can change categories, seems more a Founders thing. Raiders changing the region type to autocracy wouldn't change anything unless somehow they had access to the previous founder, which would make the issue with them changing founder less important.

My vision of SC involvement would be a proposal that puts a change of category on hold (indefinitely). So it's a veto on a region changing category, but you wouldn't be able to force a region from one to another.

Should it not be preventing a region from choosing any sort of government type, and remove whatever government type exists, rather than allowing the region to keep whatever government type was previously chosen? It would just be preventing a region from realising the full benefits of the change from status quo rather than actually messing with a region like a liberation does.

What sort of regions would be large enough/active enough to qualify for Democracy/Oligarchy, and what would the division (if any) between the two requirements wise? Obviously the Sinkers/Catcher, Europeia, 10KI, Europe and any of the non puppet storages in the second page of the largest regions would qualify for Democracy. http://www.thenorthpacific.org/world_wa_counts.html - would all this list qualify for Democracy, or would it be only Oligarchy for some. Would Nazi Europa qualify to put new nations in...

It's very much up to debate. I like Eluvatar's simple WA-population requirement; it's an accurate representation of actual people involved in a region, and easy to measure. Violet preferred a more complicated, or at least obfuscated metric, so it couldn't be "gamed".

Would Nazi Europa qualify - if they met the requirement, then I guess so. I did raise it as a concern when we discussed this behind the scenes that this doesn't give a good impression to new players. Potentially this is also an SC-solved matter - a resolution category that blocks/throttles from receiving new nations. Anyhow, that may not be necessary. These types of regions have a tendency to be targeted for invasion, and also seem to lose their founders to mod-deletion at a higher rate than others; I would envisage most of them choosing the security of Autocracy.

I can see some issues if certain regions qualify, but as long as there is a SC option of sorting that, it doesn't need to be something dealt with the mods.

Regarding the requirements, just throwing out numbers, but giving Oligarchy half or 2/3rds the requirements of Democracy, with 1/8th or even smaller slice of the 50% than what a democracy region would get. With the requirements themselves, WA is obviously the best option, but maybe throw in random things such as average last login, or discount WA's that haven't logged in within X amount of time etc. If the formula is easy to figure out, it will be gamed, which I'm not sure if we should start off a new feature with it being easily manipulated.

The idea would be detrimental to the majority of UCRs because nations would spawn in their competitors, who would likely be less
willing to give up new nations than the Feeders are, and their slightly larger competitors would get free recruitment, and over time the slightly larger competitors will become far larger than the regions that are slightly below the cut off.

Disagree. Any region would still be able to recruit any nation. How easy it is to reach the requirement for spawning really depends on what metric we go for - but it would reward work/activity. It's no bad thing if more active, harder-working regions grow above neglected puppet dumps and the like.

It's less about the inactive puppet regions, don't see too many people arguing that even the puppet storages on the front page shouldn't receive a single nation. More if there are two regions, both straddling the border of between qualifying for democracy or not. Region A is more inactive, but has a slightly greater population and qualifies. Region B is far more active, but is newer and smaller. Region A gets the new nations, Region B doesn't, and over time when the activity of both fade, Region A continually gets bigger while Region B stays in a holding pattern.

The idea would not be detrimental to Sinkers unless refounded nations were redistributed along with new nations. Otherwise, and assuming they'd qualify for new nations as part of Democracy, they'd benefit.

I imagine they would be unaffected (i.e. left as they currently are) - GCRs wouldn't have the same status options as UCRs, as we want to define how GCRs work.

I thought the point of the whole topic was for Sinkers to get new nations. I mean, it's kind of been taken over by this idea, but the OP and first bits of the problems was more about Sinkers not receiving any new nations at all. Most seemed to agree that TRR shouldn't qualify for having new nations start off as rejects, but warzones etc. weren't mentioned at all. I do think Sinkers should be able to set themselves as Democracies so they can get new nations as well, but they are active and watching the thread, like most GCRs, and it's not my fight to fight for.

The idea would not be detrimental to the Catcher, because more nations would be founded in regions that would instantly banject them, therefore more population in TRR.

Disagree. Why would UCRs work to build up their region so it qualifies for new nations, as well as accepting a loss in security to achieve this, only to kick those nations?

If they chose the Oligarchy option, they would have no real costs. I suggested all regions that get the free recruitment should have permanent GCR influence, but still doesn't change the security unless somehow they became founderless. A few UCRs are of the expected size to qualify such as TCB, and you really expect anything further right of moderate (capitalist etc.) wouldn't get banjected? One of my nations still graces the regional ban list of TCB (shouldn't be difficult to figure out for those who are curious) for some minor infraction.

Edit: Agree with Mouse

I think Mouse was disagreeing with you:

Heck think back to when TNP had been couped by Durk. You think it's "welcoming" for a newbie to be founded in one region and then find themselves in TRR the next day? Coups don't happen often in GCRs, but they happen more often there than in UCRs, don't they?

She's saying that GCRs are less stable, and more likely to have polarising incidents than UCRs.

I'm of a different view, actually, that turning up in the middle of a coup - for the types of nations likely to stick around - is actually more likely to grab your interest. It beats answering a few issues and wondering "what next?"

Yeah, my mistake there, misread, edited post, and was talking to her at the time anyway.

The reason that pushed me out of answering issues and comparing nations with my brothers was when the big bad world came at our region via the SC, so I agree with you on the coup bit. TWP coup definitely increased activity. Not sure whose point that serves though. On one hand, lower endorsement counts means more likely for a coup to occur, but less nations means that less will experience one if one does happen.

[Sedgistan]

My vision of SC involvement would be a proposal that puts a change of category on hold (indefinitely). So it's a veto on a region changing category, but you wouldn't be able to force a region from one to another.

Should it not be preventing a region from choosing any sort of government type, and remove whatever government type exists, rather than allowing the region to keep whatever government type was previously chosen? It would just be preventing a region from realising the full benefits of the change from status quo rather than actually messing with a region like a liberation does.

I think the idea is that every UCR will have to be one of Autocracy - Oligarchy - Democracy, so you can't have "no type". (Probably Oligarchy by default, as that's the current situation, unless you're qualifying for free nations.)

Disagree. Any region would still be able to recruit any nation. How easy it is to reach the requirement for spawning really depends on what metric we go for - but it would reward work/activity. It's no bad thing if more active, harder-working regions grow above neglected puppet dumps and the like.

It's less about the inactive puppet regions, don't see too many people arguing that even the puppet storages on the front page shouldn't receive a single nation. More if there are two regions, both straddling the border of between qualifying for democracy or not. Region A is more inactive, but has a slightly greater population and qualifies. Region B is far more active, but is newer and smaller. Region A gets the new nations, Region B doesn't, and over time when the activity of both fade, Region A continually gets bigger while Region B stays in a holding pattern.

I don't think qualifying for nations founding would give you enough to stay above whatever population/activity thresholds existed - but we can't really know that until the change is implemented and we see how many regions opt for Oligarchy/Democracy status.

I imagine they would be unaffected (i.e. left as they currently are) - GCRs wouldn't have the same status options as UCRs, as we want to define how GCRs work.

I thought the point of the whole topic was for Sinkers to get new nations. I mean, it's kind of been taken over by this idea, but the OP and first bits of the problems was more about Sinkers not receiving any new nations at all. Most seemed to agree that TRR shouldn't qualify for having new nations start off as rejects, but warzones etc. weren't mentioned at all. I do think Sinkers should be able to set themselves as Democracies so they can get new nations as well, but they are active and watching the thread, like most GCRs, and it's not my fight to fight for.

The original intent of the thread was to get Sinkers new nations, but that's not the intent of the D/O/A change (not sure on that acronym... ).

Disagree. Why would UCRs work to build up their region so it qualifies for new nations, as well as accepting a loss in security to achieve this, only to kick those nations?

If they chose the Oligarchy option, they would have no real costs. I suggested all regions that get the free recruitment should have permanent GCR influence, but still doesn't change the security unless somehow they became founderless. A few UCRs are of the expected size to qualify such as TCB, and you really expect anything further right of moderate (capitalist etc.) wouldn't get banjected? One of my nations still graces the regional ban list of TCB (shouldn't be difficult to figure out for those who are curious) for some minor infraction.

That seems like a great target for recruitment - "Outcast by The Community Bloc? Join Capitalist Paradise today! Tolerant and welcoming of all views (like all right-leaning nations are)...".

Having GCR influence in Democracies and possibly Oligarchies is an interesting prospect. It makes switching to those statuses much more of a long-term consideration.

[Nay-O-Bi]

One can see that the World Assembly... has become something of an oligarchy.

We have the huge, lumbering GCRs, with their countless WA Endorsements and huge Regional Influence, that can influence proposals with their one vote, and then "the rest": most of us UCRs, with far fewer WA Endorsements than the GCRs, unable to do much in the World Assembly. Though this may have become an issue because of the Reddit nations coming over, the number of nations joining NationStates is still definitely increasing: NationStates is still gaining more nations then it is losing, and they consist mainly of actual Nations and puppets. Therefore, it is better to approach this issue now then later.

It appears to be that the reason that Corm has suggested to Spawn/Respawn in all GCRs is that the feeder GCRs have too much influence in the World Assembly. To counteract this, I suggest that we do exactly what Corm has said: allow for all GCRs (except for The Rejected Realms; could it be renamed to The Pacific Realms?) to have spawning and respawning nations so that regional power is less concentrated at the five Pacifics.

However, I suggest something new: In the World Assembly, every region would vote normally, but in the Security Council, every region with a WA Delegate only receives two votes. The reasoning behind this is that in international issues, the region's nations should all decide on new international laws and let their vote count, but in Commendations, Condemnations, Liberations, (possibly?) "Reformations" (as in the Reforming of a Regional Government from Oligarchy to Autocracy and so on), and "Refusal of Reformation" (as in the international community refusing to allow a Regional Government to "Reform"), the international issues have less to do with a region's nations and more with a region's government. This would be similar to the United States Congress, where they have a Senate and a House of Representatives.

[Nay-O-Bi]

But the comments in the thread seem to indicate the motivation is actually making TNP less powerful. I am confused. What exactly are we trying to achieve here?

Killing several birds with one stone:

• Reducing the over-sized feeders (bad for technical reasons)
• Diluting GCR influence
• Giving a more lasting/reliable opt-out from being invaded for those that want it
• Reducing messy re-foundings, which wipe regional history
• Including a significant enough incentive to ensure a sizeable stock of "invadable" regions remains
• Creating a more "consensual" R/D game
• Giving the SC a new tool

Also, another thought:
To create a more "consensual" R/D game and to have a significant enough incentive to ensure a sizeable stock of "invadable" regions remains, the Autocracy feature in the Autocracy, Democracy, and Oligarchy update that is coming up will ruin R/D:

If nations can easily establish Autocracies in their regions when they start them, most regions could be autocracies, and by most I mean most of the invadable regions that only have a couple nations [a LOT]: those could get wiped out, and unless there's a cost to founding the autocracy in the first place, many nations could simply found as autocracies, and the only Democracies and Oligarchies would be larger, more un-invadable regions.

We could have something where only autocracies have an "entering" region where new nations first reside before actually entering the region, much like the system between Hell and the Underworld, only that the game would govern how nations would enter the actual region. The founding nation would be in charge of both regions. If an invading force occupied the "entering" region and gained a certain amount of WA endorsements, sustaining it in a short occupation, they could take over the "entering" region and gain access to the actual region, where only those nations that had endorsed could enter. Then, the autocracy would temporarily become a democracy, where the Founder would become a WA Delegate unless the Founder ejected the nations before Update time, where, if the nation with the most endorsements was still in the region, the nation would become Founder. This gives a safeguard to autocracies if their "entering" region got invaded, but allows an incentive for invading regions.

[Cormactopia II]

I thought the point of the whole topic was for Sinkers to get new nations. I mean, it's kind of been taken over by this idea, but the OP and first bits of the problems was more about Sinkers not receiving any new nations at all. Most seemed to agree that TRR shouldn't qualify for having new nations start off as rejects, but warzones etc. weren't mentioned at all. I do think Sinkers should be able to set themselves as Democracies so they can get new nations as well, but they are active and watching the thread, like most GCRs, and it's not my fight to fight for.

The original intent of the thread was to get Sinkers new nations, but that's not the intent of the D/O/A change (not sure on that acronym... ).

Just as a point of clarification, this wasn't the original point of the thread. The original point of the thread was to discuss the enormous influence Feeders hold over the game due to the built-in advantages they have, and to propose a solution to that. My proposed solution certainly would have benefited the Sinkers -- as well as user-created regions, albeit indirectly -- by diluting the populations of the Feeders, while growing the populations of the Sinkers.

The solution [violet] has proposed would also benefit the Sinkers, as well as UCRs. It would just benefit UCRs more than it would benefit the Sinkers, if the Sinkers don't receive spawned nations, and I'm fine with that. Both Sinkers and UCRs, and the overall game, would benefit from diluting Feeder populations and reducing their influence over the game. As long as re-spawned nations aren't also redistributed, given the far more damaging impact that would have on Sinkers, I quite like [violet]'s proposal and I think it's superior to what I proposed in the OP.

[Roavin]

The resettlement proposal would also benefit both UCRs and sinkers as well and lessen the feeder influence. :>

[Unibot III]

Describing regions as "democratic" or "autocratic" officially is problematic I think because democracies and autocracies describe state governments, not associations and such. No?

[Barbarossistan]

the description of autocratic or democratis for a region is apt enough, an autocracy would indeed have a single ruler while a democracy would have an effectively elected ruler, forms of rule are not just for nations but for any organization

[Ethel mermania]

I like that new nations are spawned in the feeders, it makes the feeders and easy introduction for new players. Players should not be dropped into regions that may be a poor introduction to them. Ie dumping a 13 year old into nazi supporting region, would not be fair to the player.

If the intent is to dilute the WA power of the feeders and sinkers create more feeders and sinkers.

[Drasnia]

Or perhaps the reason people are staying in GCRs instead of leaving for UCRs is because there aren't enough incentives for people to leave. I have no idea what to suggest specifically, but if we want to break up the Feeder/Sinker power bloc, we need to give people better/more reasons to participate in UCRs.

[The Bruce]

Easiest solution would be either
A. Wait and see
B. Create more feeders.

Honestly while it would be nice for UCR's to capture some spawned nations it would give select regions an advantage. If it were elder regions with no founder I would say fair enough.

This is the obvious answer. In the past, whenever the feeders get too full a new feeder or three is created. Given that this dramatic increase in the number of players is mainly from a single source of advertising, unless admins are planning similar recruiting tactics in the future, they should wait at least three months to see what becomes of it. They should probably have some patience and wait to act even if they are planning similar recruiting among the intertubes, just to monitor player retention.

System created regions have functions. When you mess that up, you're just trying to make a founderless user created region out of a sinker. Players seeking to govern warzones or sinkers aren't exactly kept in the dark about how these game created regions function. If you're jealous about the size of other system created regions, be more active and make your region more appealing for the nations that want to be active there.

If the North Pacific is becoming a successful regional community in their own right, beyond just a regional clique fighting to keep their flag on top of the page and control of the world factbook entry, you should be complimenting them not blaming them for it.

[The Bruce]

I think that if you were going to make a trickle of spawned nations into the userite regions, they should go to newer regions, not to older regions.

It may sound like heresy to the older regions (like my own) but up and coming regional communities are very important to the game. Having batches of 50-75 new nations into a region for its first 72 hours gives that region incentive and the ability to do something with itself. Then have a smaller trickle of 10-25 over the next 72 hours. This will help minty fresh regions get some traction in the game and promote the growth of new regional communities. It will work a lot better than having someone howling in the wilderness and nobody hearing them, when they create new regions. I cannot begin to count how many tiny regions never had a chance, with their recruiting messages drowned in a sea of stamps and scripts. We've likely lost a lot of talented players that way, because they never had a chance.

I haven't done any recruiting for my own region since 2007. If I feel like doing so, I know how. Enthusiastic players new to the game might not have the ability or the history in the game to have their region just automatically pick up new players the way an established region does. So if you want a real opportunity to grow the game, start by growing new regional communities.

[Topid]

Having GCR influence in Democracies and possibly Oligarchies is an interesting prospect. It makes switching to those statuses much more of a long-term consideration.

On this point I hope it is remembered that in the recent (in NS tech terms) past the influence of native communities was already reduced to something like 1/6th of its original value, because you can now how 12 (or maybe 10, I can't remember) ROs ejecting our members at the same time without the need to switch leads. Invaders can also maintain control of a region after a failed refound attempt through ROs, because you keep your border control powers even if you update outside of the region. Liberations still work for the most part, but it isn't as certain as it used to be. So the environment today is already much harder for natives under occupation than it was before ROs. Doing this and going even further than that, by giving raiders the ability to erase all but the most recent 6 months of influence in a region even if it is phased in slowly over time as it was in the feeders seems to take that even further.

I like some of the general ideas here. It would be far better if R/D was opt-in with advantages for opting in. It is not better to make it easier for raiders to achieve game-over victories on founderless regions.

[Canton Empire]

One can see that the World Assembly... has become something of an oligarchy.

We have the huge, lumbering GCRs, with their countless WA Endorsements and huge Regional Influence, that can influence proposals with their one vote, and then "the rest": most of us UCRs, with far fewer WA Endorsements than the GCRs, unable to do much in the World Assembly. Though this may have become an issue because of the Reddit nations coming over, the number of nations joining NationStates is still definitely increasing: NationStates is still gaining more nations then it is losing, and they consist mainly of actual Nations and puppets. Therefore, it is better to approach this issue now then later.

It appears to be that the reason that Corm has suggested to Spawn/Respawn in all GCRs is that the feeder GCRs have too much influence in the World Assembly. To counteract this, I suggest that we do exactly what Corm has said: allow for all GCRs (except for The Rejected Realms; could it be renamed to The Pacific Realms?) to have spawning and respawning nations so that regional power is less concentrated at the five Pacifics.

However, I suggest something new: In the World Assembly, every region would vote normally, but in the Security Council, every region with a WA Delegate only receives two votes. The reasoning behind this is that in international issues, the region's nations should all decide on new international laws and let their vote count, but in Commendations, Condemnations, Liberations, (possibly?) "Reformations" (as in the Reforming of a Regional Government from Oligarchy to Autocracy and so on), and "Refusal of Reformation" (as in the international community refusing to allow a Regional Government to "Reform"), the international issues have less to do with a region's nations and more with a region's government. This would be similar to the United States Congress, where they have a Senate and a House of Representatives.

I think this persons last paragraph makes a lot of sense, I implore everyone to read this.

[The Bruce]

I think that if you were going to make a trickle of spawned nations into the userite regions, they should go to newer regions, not to older regions.

It may sound like heresy to the older regions (like my own) but up and coming regional communities are very important to the game. Having batches of 50-75 new nations into a region for its first 72 hours gives that region incentive and the ability to do something with itself. Then have a smaller trickle of 10-25 over the next 72 hours. This will help minty fresh regions get some traction in the game and promote the growth of new regional communities. It will work a lot better than having someone howling in the wilderness and nobody hearing them, when they create new regions. I cannot begin to count how many tiny regions never had a chance, with their recruiting messages drowned in a sea of stamps and scripts. We've likely lost a lot of talented players that way, because they never had a chance.

I haven't done any recruiting for my own region since 2007. If I feel like doing so, I know how. Enthusiastic players new to the game might not have the ability or the history in the game to have their region just automatically pick up new players the way an established region does. So if you want a real opportunity to grow the game, start by growing new regional communities.

An addendum to the idea of new regions getting the spawning nation trickle to boost their numbers:

1) Ensure that if a founder leaves the region the tap is immediately turned off.

2) A founder would be unable to gain this trickle for more than one region, either linked to their email account, IP address, or nation. That way you don't have one player founding a ton of regions and ruin others ability to legitimately use this, because someone or several someone's would. What kind of limit, once per year or once per month or 3-6 months is something that would need to be considered. Probably once every three months would be the minimum for this, but once every 6 months would be better.

3) Refounded regions would be restricted from using this. You might want to allow for a grace period of a month or six months before someone refounding a region name would gain the benefits from this, but since a lot of refoundings are done as invader prizes or just to wrest things from invaders, it's not in the spirit of building new regional communities.

4) You would want a game system email sent to any player that was sent to player created regions, to inform them about what has happened, so they don't assume that whatever fledgling players created region they find themselves in is a system created region.