A change to Influence

[[violet]]

Instead of proposing changes that do not actually result in any change to the status quo, why not make a change that will at least provide the opportunity for real change in the gameplay dynamic?

As one of the few players around with extensive experience utilizing GCR regional controls both before and after the implementation of Influence, I believe I can state with some authority that the end result of Influence does not align with the initial goal. And the introduction of diminishing Influence, which was meant to mitigate those failings, has done little to alleviate the problem overall.

So, instead of suggesting that things be added to the game in order to facilitate more levels of stagnation, why not remove something that has definitively helped accelerate it? Why not remove Influence altogether?

From its implementation, the GCRs in particular have modified their structures so that there is no intrigue in their internal politics and no threat from outside. Whether it be one all-powerful Delegate nation, a group of Guardians, a Security Council, or whatever you wish to call it, the manipulation of Influence within the GCRs has created a static environment where a rogue Delegate or coup is simply a minor and very temporary inconvenience rather than a major gameplay event or rallying cry. In pre-2006 a feeder coup would result in the rallying of GCRs and UCRs alike around a common goal and would facilitate political interaction and growth. Now it is just a footnote while we await the inevitable removal by a selected group of oligarchical nations.

The removal of Influence would assist in the invader/defender aspects of the game as well, making it easier to oppose entrenched Delegates and making it necessary for those Delegates to be active and to actively take part in the political arena around them.

I do understand that the implementation of Influence caused a removal of the griefing rules but I believe the moderation and technical teams are sufficiently competent to come up with an alternative. Perhaps a threshold percentage of pre-major update nations as the upper limit of ejections by a Delegate?

I am aware that this will not be universally supported, but I also know that from a GCR perspective, no other region has made as extensive and controlled use of dominating Influence as the Pacific, and if we can weather the storm, I expect others can as well.

Just a thought.

[Phydios]

I do understand that the implementation of Influence caused a removal of the griefing rules but I believe the moderation and technical teams are sufficiently competent to come up with an alternative. Perhaps a threshold percentage of pre-major update nations as the upper limit of ejections by a Delegate?

They might be able to, but they don't want to. From what I heard, the time before the implementation of influence was an enormous pain in the behind for the whole team, and they were all relieved when it was over. Influence allows the game to define which GP actions are legal and which are not. Removing influence would make the mod team once again manage that manually. It would be a return to mod-enforced griefing rules, no matter what it was called, and no matter what the specific rules were. I haven't heard of any mod or admin that thinks returning to that would improve the site.

[Pierconium]

I do understand that the implementation of Influence caused a removal of the griefing rules but I believe the moderation and technical teams are sufficiently competent to come up with an alternative. Perhaps a threshold percentage of pre-major update nations as the upper limit of ejections by a Delegate?

They might be able to, but they don't want to. From what I heard, the time before the implementation of influence was an enormous pain in the behind for the whole team, and they were all relieved when it was over. Influence allows the game to define which GP actions are legal and which are not. Removing influence would make the mod team once again manage that manually. It would be a return to mod-enforced griefing rules, no matter what it was called, and no matter what the specific rules were. I haven't heard of any mod or admin that thinks returning to that would improve the site.

I disagree. Influence allows for that yes, but it isn't the only way that could be accomplished. There are undoubtedly other methods of restricting it without Influence and without direct hands-on mod intervention. If the number of nations in a region pre-update is X then a method of restricting delegate ejections to (X*.2) for a given update period should be possible and achieve the same overall result. That simplistic formula admittedly fits GCRs more than UCRs so the actual calculation would be more complicated.

Or just remove Influence from the GCRs and use the simple formula. At least that would do something.

[Bedetopia]

How to handle passwording then if you remove influence?

[All Good People]

How to handle passwording then if you remove influence?

It would be no cost, just as it was no cost before Influence.

I support the removal of Influence, it has had a detrimental effect on gameplay IMO. But then, this has always been my position since it's implementation. There were years of stagnation in R/D, and a general slow-down of all aspects of gameplay. Certainly, the addition of more game features has helped to solve that stagnation.

As Pierconium indicates, the limiting of Influence gathering to 6 months worth in the GCRs has had no appreciable effect. The oligarchy of each GCR has simply adjusted to the new levels to maintain their positions. If I recall correctly, it was said that the Influence limit in the GCRs was somewhat on a trial basis, and it could be expanded to UCRs if it worked out alright. It would seem that there being little to no impact in the GCRs, there should be every reason to expand that limit NSwide to include UCRs. This would encourage nations in UCRs to remain active to keep up their Influence as a point of security against raids, increasing engagement in the game among players of all kinds and interests.

[Frisbeeteria]

All this talk about GCR problems are irrelevant if you don't consider the effect on the other 20,644 regions. There's more to the game than GCRs.

Influence allows the game to define which GP actions are legal and which are not. Removing influence would make the mod team once again manage that manually

That is correct, and that is the goal. Any suggestion that changes the system from objective (via code) to subjective (via mods) is almost certainly not going to be considered.

I'm fine with removing Influence IF you can come up with a better way to deal with it via code. I'm not asking for code, I'm asking for a way.
We're fine with suggestions that we tweak the influence formula because it's not working. Make a strong case and we'll listen
I don't think anyone on staff will seriously consider disabling the influence system without a replacement.

Yes, it's our own little Obamacare. It's not going to get repealed unless it's replaced.

[Glen-Rhodes]

GCRs are legitimate communities, too. If your argument is that we need to suffer more destructive coups and invasions, it's not a very strong one. These types of Gameplay events don't increase activity and don't make the game more entertaining and fun. What they do accomplish is increasing the animosity among people, destroy online friendships, and disrupt the many people who end up ejected from their region for no reason.

[Pierconium]

All this talk about GCR problems are irrelevant if you don't consider the effect on the other 20,644 regions. There's more to the game than GCRs.

Influence allows the game to define which GP actions are legal and which are not. Removing influence would make the mod team once again manage that manually

That is correct, and that is the goal. Any suggestion that changes the system from objective (via code) to subjective (via mods) is almost certainly not going to be considered.

I'm fine with removing Influence IF you can come up with a better way to deal with it via code. I'm not asking for code, I'm asking for a way.
We're fine with suggestions that we tweak the influence formula because it's not working. Make a strong case and we'll listen
I don't think anyone on staff will seriously consider disabling the influence system without a replacement.

Yes, it's our own little Obamacare. It's not going to get repealed unless it's replaced.

I suggested that Influence be removed only from the GCRs and be replaced with a static formula that limits the number of nations that a Delegate can eject in one update period (for example 20% of the pre-update population).

I don't agree with the initial premise that GCR concerns are irrelevant without further consideration because code for GCRs has been specifically altered before to limit the accumulation of Influence so the precedent for a GCR-specific solution does exist.

But, in consideration of the other 20k plus regions, the accumulation of Influence has made it more difficult for nations in Founderless regions to remove unwanted Delegate nations.

[Pierconium]

GCRs are legitimate communities, too. If your argument is that we need to suffer more destructive coups and invasions, it's not a very strong one. These types of Gameplay events don't increase activity and don't make the game more entertaining and fun. What they do accomplish is increasing the animosity among people, destroy online friendships, and disrupt the many people who end up ejected from their region for no reason.

I'm not arguing for turmoil, but I am arguing against the stagnation that currently exists. A Delegte with significant Influence surrounded by a few high Influence nations does not need to engage with the community at all to maintain control. This can lead (and has led) to long term Delegacies that hurt the community more than help because of their indifference and/or inactivity.

I believe removing Influence would prompt a more active Delegacy.

Edit: autocorrect errors

[Glen-Rhodes]

That stagnation, if it does exist, has nothing to do with influence making it harder to force chaos upon our communities. Because, once again, that chaos doesn't ever bring any long-term activity with it. If you think long-serving Delegates are an issue, then you should start electing your Delegates and introducing term limits. Removing Influence would only force regions like GCRs to become even more insular with who can be Delegate and who can get within 100 miles of the position. All it does is open the floodgates for disruptive groups -- Empire and NPO among them -- to ruin communities based on nothing more than their own whims.

You're the former ruler of The Pacific, which currently ejects anybody getting over 10 endorsements, despite the current Delegate having over 600. Perhaps we should look closer to home for how to fix supposed stagnation.

[Naivetry]

*peeks into Technical and can't resist thread*

If you think long-serving Delegates are an issue, then you should start electing your Delegates and introducing term limits.

From the political metagaming perspective... nah. Manufacturing elections denies coded reality. Power in the GCRs (TRR excepted) rests with the people sitting on the big Influence pools; democracy comes at their whim or not at all. And is it really democracy if the elites are just putting on a good show for the rest of us?

Just like regions with active Founders are coded as absolute monarchies, no matter what else the Founder lets them play at being, Influence means that GCRs are coded as oligarchies. Granted that feeder politics tend towards aristocracy anyway, it would be better if that were an aristocracy based more on activity and regional investment than on how successfully you and your friends can keep a big pool of nations alive for 6 months.

I mean, I sympathize with not wanting to have your political system and community disrupted. But that's what can happen in real political systems, as 2016 taught the world. Right now, the GCRs are protected from all political consequences by game code. That's ultimately not a good thing for the political health of their communities (which lack a compelling reason to exist, as far as their interaction with the region goes) or for the game.

Let me argue, too, that the GCR world is not bound to collapse into chaos and anarchy if we totally eliminate Influence - or rather, the Influence cost of using the Regional Controls, which is all we really mean when we talk about these things - in the GCRs. I say that based on my experience as Delegate in TRR, where it was impossible for me to eject anyone... so the political stability of the region relied on my attentiveness and that of our members. We did just fine during my tenure thanks to some sharp-eyed future mods (plus my ridiculous obsession with sending manual telegrams), and from the look of things, TRR hasn't been swept by ceaseless waves of invading hordes since then, either.

TRR's a special case, of course, because the old Delegate can't be removed at all, so the possibility of the old Delegate/community reclaiming their place is always very real. But we could imitate that situation pretty easily in the feeders, too. Just make it impossible to eject a nation with, say, 10% of your endorsements or more. (I'm just throwing out that number at random... feel free to mess with it.)

That runs against Pierconium's suggestion to make it possible to eject anyone, period, but I think a careful Delegate could still manage to remove threats early on, while a usurper probably could not eject the former Delegate without showing themselves to be a violent dictator (by removing a huge number of innocent nations in the process). And that would make the politics of it much more interesting and engaging.

[Unibot III]

We already DID change the GCRs influence rules. It was quite literally the only thing to happen out of the R&D Conference. GCR politicians, some young (wanting to push out their old guards), some bored (and looking to coup), made a big splash in that conference and basically hijacked it. The only blasted thing agreed upon that conference was that GCRs' influence would operate differently than UCRs.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Manufacturing elections denies coded reality. Power in the GCRs (TRR excepted) rests with the people sitting on the big Influence pools; democracy comes at their whim or not at all. And is it really democracy if the elites are just putting on a good show for the rest of us?

TSP has been holding elections for our Delegate for a decade. It's not that difficult. You can say this about the real world, too, and yet somehow the US has been doing it for two centuries, too.

It's not my fault that you can't imagine a dynamic region. Devs don't need to upend the entire stability of democratic GCR communities just because some of you guys can't figure out how to improve activity in your own regions.

I'll also point out that your whole posts rests upon the wrong premise. It's not influence that determines the Delegate. It's endorsements. You can rocket somebody with no influence at all to the Delegate position in a matter of days.

[Pierconium]

Manufacturing elections denies coded reality. Power in the GCRs (TRR excepted) rests with the people sitting on the big Influence pools; democracy comes at their whim or not at all. And is it really democracy if the elites are just putting on a good show for the rest of us?

TSP has been holding elections for our Delegate for a decade. It's not that difficult. You can say this about the real world, too, and yet somehow the US has been doing it for two centuries, too.

It's not my fault that you can't imagine a dynamic region. Devs don't need to upend the entire stability of democratic GCR communities just because some of you guys can't figure out how to improve activity in your own regions.

I'll also point out that your whole posts rests upon the wrong premise. It's not influence that determines the Delegate. It's endorsements. You can rocket somebody with no influence at all to the Delegate position in a matter of days.

I believe the point that was made was that the 'democratic' process in GCRs only works so long as those controlling the upper levels of Influence allow it to work.

[Pierconium]

We already DID change the GCRs influence rules. It was quite literally the only thing to happen out of the R&D Conference. GCR politicians, some young (wanting to push out their old guards), some bored (and looking to coup), made a big splash in that conference and basically hijacked it. The only blasted thing agreed upon that conference was that GCRs' influence would operate differently than UCRs.

Yes, this is what I stated to Frisbeeteria above regarding precedent already existing for GCRs to be handled differently. That change accomplished nothing.

I'm suggesting that we take it further.

[Unibot III]

We already DID change the GCRs influence rules. It was quite literally the only thing to happen out of the R&D Conference. GCR politicians, some young (wanting to push out their old guards), some bored (and looking to coup), made a big splash in that conference and basically hijacked it. The only blasted thing agreed upon that conference was that GCRs' influence would operate differently than UCRs.

Yes, this is what I stated to Frisbeeteria above regarding precedent already existing for GCRs to be handled differently. That change accomplished nothing.

I'm suggesting that we take it further.

And when getting influence accomplishes nothing, since there's really no difference in terms of coups post or pre influence, what will you suggest then? Shall we auto-purge GCRs? A vengeful 'Francos Spain' NPC assumes power automatically in every GCR not meeting their ejection quota, perhaps?

I'm being disagreeable, I know. But I think when you look at the number of coups that occurred pre-influence and those post-influence and which ones achieved a (so far) permanent effect, it's not an alarming difference. You and several other older gameplayers have been hankering for a "golden age," a sort of "Make NationStates Great Again" mantra, since before I joined the game - and it was always misplaced. We have the same frequency of coups, they cause the same sort of drama and the same sort of resistance. The difference is the people. It's Hileville and Milograd rather than Biyah and Mammothistan, it's Cormac Stark and Feux rather than Francos Spain and Commercial Affairs. And there's no game feature that can solve nostalgia.

[Pierconium]

Yes, this is what I stated to Frisbeeteria above regarding precedent already existing for GCRs to be handled differently. That change accomplished nothing.

I'm suggesting that we take it further.

And when getting influence accomplishes nothing, since there's really no difference in terms of coups post or pre influence, what will you suggest then? Shall we auto-purge GCRs? A vengeful 'Francos Spain' NPC assumes power automatically in every GCR not meeting their ejection quota, perhaps?

I'm being disagreeable, I know. But I think when you look at the number of coups that occurred pre-influence and those post-influence and which ones achieved a (so far) permanent effect, it's not an alarming difference. You and several other older gameplayers have been hankering for a "golden age," a sort of "Make NationStates Great Again" mantra, since before I joined the game - and it was always misplaced. We have the same frequency of coups, they cause they same sort of drama and the same sort of resistance. The difference is the people. It's Hileville and Milograd rather than Biyah and Mammothistan, it's Cormac Stark and Feux rather than Francos Spain and Commercial Affairs. And there's no game feature that can solve nostalgia.

No one is talking only about coups or nostalgia except you and Glen Rhodes. I'm certainly not concerned with them as an important aspect of what I'm stating. But I will state that coups, when they did occur pre-Influence, did result in motivation and activity regardless of what people who haven't actually taken part in them from pre-2006 might think. There was a rallying of UCRs and GCRs. There were gameplay enemies, instead of ideological enemies. There was mutual respect and shared experience, which is why so many of those antiquity players that are still around are so because of what the game experience gave them back then. It isn't just nostalgia, it's memory and history.

That aside, I'm talking about the stagnation of the game in that there is no internal motivation within many regions, and all of the GCRs, compelling those that control the Influence to engage with the community as a whole because there is no tangible need to maintain anything beyond superficial approval for whatever those nations demand, whether it be a pseudo-democracy or a dictatorship.

To be honest, I'm a bit surprised, considering your other suggestions, that you would oppose this. Is it because it would provide a level playing field instead of yielding a definitive gameplay goal? Of everyone on this forum, I've probably made the most effective and consistent use of Influence to manipulate the system. If I think it's a problem, then it may well be...

[Glen-Rhodes]

I believe the point that was made was that the 'democratic' process in GCRs only works so long as those controlling the upper levels of Influence allow it to work.

And again, I responded: TSP has been holding elections for our Delegate for a decade. It's not that difficult. You can say this about the real world, too, and yet somehow the US has been doing it for two centuries, too.

"Democracy only works if people agree to do it" is redundant. That's obviously the case, because that's the literal definition of democracy. Regions like your own have been using the "the only thing that matters is who has the most influence"-excuse for a long time to argue for their 10 endorsement limit, for an iron-fisted ruling class. And then we have TNP, TSP, TEP, and other democratic regions that have been holding elections for a very long time. Regional activity is not predicated upon the looming threat of power instability. Your region is inactive because the people ruling it kind of suck at running regions. Not because influence is propping them up. Democratic regions have common-sense influence structures to prevent devastating coups -- the exact opposite of what you think we need, I guess -- and yet we still manage to have dynamism in our governments and find ways to spur activity when it lags.

The Pacific could easily adopt elections and maintain a group of high-influence nations to prevent and respond to coups. Again, before suggesting game-wide changes for regional stagnation, make changes to your own house and see if the problem isn't just the way you do things over there.

[Pierconium]

I believe the point that was made was that the 'democratic' process in GCRs only works so long as those controlling the upper levels of Influence allow it to work.

And again, I responded: TSP has been holding elections for our Delegate for a decade. It's not that difficult. You can say this about the real world, too, and yet somehow the US has been doing it for two centuries, too.

"Democracy only works if people agree to do it" is redundant. That's obviously the case, because that's the literal definition of democracy. Regions like your own have been using the "the only thing that matters is who has the most influence"-excuse for a long time to argue for their 10 endorsement limit, for an iron-fisted ruling class. And then we have TNP, TSP, TEP, and other democratic regions that have been holding elections for a very long time. Regional activity is not predicated upon the looming threat of power instability. Your region is inactive because the people ruling it kind of suck at running regions. Not because influence is propping them up. Democratic regions have common-sense influence structures to prevent devastating coups -- the exact opposite of what you think we need, I guess -- and yet we still manage to have dynamism in our governments and find ways to spur activity when it lags.

The Pacific could easily adopt elections and maintain a group of high-influence nations to prevent and respond to coups. Again, before suggesting game-wide changes for regional stagnation, make changes to your own house and see if the problem isn't just the way you do things over there.

And once again I'll point out what was stated to you previously. The so called democratic process you are talking about only exists because those in control of the Influence allow it to be so. You keep talking about what the Pacific could do, but so what? First, this isn't a discussion about your gameplay ideology so thanks for nothing. But if the Pacific did want to have elections it would only be valid for so long as those controlling the Influence allowed it to be so, just like in TSP, just like in TNP, and every other GCR bar TRR. It's just the way it is because of game mechanics and that has nothing to do with ideology.

You talking about the oligarchy that 'prevent and respond to coups' is no different than the Pacific Senate. How is a perpetual power structure of a handful of nations that dictate the static form of government any different than the Pacific except that they currently support a pseudo-democracy? You've just drunk so much of your own Kool-Aid that you can't tell the difference. I feel sorry for you.

[Farnhamia]

And again, I responded: TSP has been holding elections for our Delegate for a decade. It's not that difficult. You can say this about the real world, too, and yet somehow the US has been doing it for two centuries, too.

"Democracy only works if people agree to do it" is redundant. That's obviously the case, because that's the literal definition of democracy. Regions like your own have been using the "the only thing that matters is who has the most influence"-excuse for a long time to argue for their 10 endorsement limit, for an iron-fisted ruling class. And then we have TNP, TSP, TEP, and other democratic regions that have been holding elections for a very long time. Regional activity is not predicated upon the looming threat of power instability. Your region is inactive because the people ruling it kind of suck at running regions. Not because influence is propping them up. Democratic regions have common-sense influence structures to prevent devastating coups -- the exact opposite of what you think we need, I guess -- and yet we still manage to have dynamism in our governments and find ways to spur activity when it lags.

The Pacific could easily adopt elections and maintain a group of high-influence nations to prevent and respond to coups. Again, before suggesting game-wide changes for regional stagnation, make changes to your own house and see if the problem isn't just the way you do things over there.

And once again I'll point out what was stated to you previously. The so called democratic process you are talking about only exists because those in control of the Influence allow it to be so. You keep talking about what the Pacific could do, but so what? First, this isn't a discussion about your gameplay ideology so thanks for nothing. But if the Pacific did want to have elections it would only be valid for so long as those controlling the Influence allowed it to be so, just like in TSP, just like in TNP, and every other GCR bar TRR. It's just the way it is because of game mechanics and that has nothing to do with ideology.

You talking about the oligarchy that 'prevent and respond to coups' is no different than the Pacific Senate. How is a perpetual power structure of a handful of nations that dictate the static form of government any different than the Pacific except that they currently support a pseudo-democracy? You've just drunk so much of your own Kool-Aid that you can't tell the difference. I feel sorry for you.

The Kool-Aid remark was totally unnecessary. That way lies flaming and redtext and madness. Knock it off.

[Pierconium]

And once again I'll point out what was stated to you previously. The so called democratic process you are talking about only exists because those in control of the Influence allow it to be so. You keep talking about what the Pacific could do, but so what? First, this isn't a discussion about your gameplay ideology so thanks for nothing. But if the Pacific did want to have elections it would only be valid for so long as those controlling the Influence allowed it to be so, just like in TSP, just like in TNP, and every other GCR bar TRR. It's just the way it is because of game mechanics and that has nothing to do with ideology.

You talking about the oligarchy that 'prevent and respond to coups' is no different than the Pacific Senate. How is a perpetual power structure of a handful of nations that dictate the static form of government any different than the Pacific except that they currently support a pseudo-democracy? You've just drunk so much of your own Kool-Aid that you can't tell the difference. I feel sorry for you.

The Kool-Aid remark was totally unnecessary. That way lies flaming and redtext and madness. Knock it off.

No worries. I should have just reported it as off-topic IC commentary. My mistake.

[Naivetry]

I suggested that Influence be removed only from the GCRs and be replaced with a static formula that limits the number of nations that a Delegate can eject in one update period (for example 20% of the pre-update population).

If we're brainstorming, I'd be very interested hearing what people think about removing all Influence costs for ejecting WA nations across the game, not just in the GCRs - and replacing it with a dirt-simple formula where you simply can't eject a WA nation which has a certain percentage (10%? 20%? 50%?) of your number of endorsements or higher. (50% is simple and scales easily, though could be super hard to meet in the feeders.)

We could keep Influence costs for ejecting non-WA nations, so they're still afforded their existing level of protection from raiders and tyrannical delegates. But WA nations would have to earn their protection - which is only fair, since they are also threatening in ways that non-WA nations are not. (We might have to tweak the Influence rate gains for non-WA nations so they would be safer, and up the Influence cost of instituting a password, since Delegates would no longer be blowing their Influence on ejecting high-Influence WAs. But that could be worked out.)

Thoughts?

And now, to continue the debate about GCR democracy...

Manufacturing elections denies coded reality. Power in the GCRs (TRR excepted) rests with the people sitting on the big Influence pools; democracy comes at their whim or not at all. And is it really democracy if the elites are just putting on a good show for the rest of us?

TSP has been holding elections for our Delegate for a decade. It's not that difficult. You can say this about the real world, too, and yet somehow the US has been doing it for two centuries, too.

It should be quite clear to anyone watching these days that the U.S. is not actually a democracy. (Nor was it intended to be one, but that's a conversation for another time.)

Holding elections doesn't make a state democratic, any more than owning a gun makes you a soldier. I'm not saying that TSP is trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes, as if you're pretending to be a democracy to trick people. I know enough about the community to know that democratic values and conduct are really important to the leadership and active citizens, and that your people behave accordingly. In many ways, it's an admirable ideological commitment. But it's ultimately self-deceptive.

What you really have is a group of benevolent elites who step back and allow others to govern while ensuring by their mere presence that no real revolution can ever take place.

Now, we can argue all day long about whether or not revolutions are ever desirable. But I think the potential for a real revolution - potential at the level of the game code, which sets the actual limits on player behavior - is essential to provide a reason for the regional elite to engage with the region itself. That's what we're missing.

Just so you know, I am not one of those people who advocates having a coup solely for the sake of "activity." The problem with every coup I've watched in NS is that the revolutionaries are usually more interested in sparking controversy than in good government. In some cases you need a forest fire to clear the ground of old, dead wood and allow new things to grow. But most of the time, people are just setting fires for the fun of watching things burn, without plans to plant anything new and viable afterward. Just as in a forest fire, though, when healthy trees have far less to worry about than dead wood, healthy regions have far less to fear from an attempted coup than dead ones do. If your community is at all paying attention to what's happening in your region, you should be fine.

I'll also point out that your whole posts rests upon the wrong premise. It's not influence that determines the Delegate. It's endorsements. You can rocket somebody with no influence at all to the Delegate position in a matter of days.

Sure you can, but their actual power (= ability to exercise Regional Controls) once they took the seat would still depend entirely on their Influence - not directly on their number of endorsements or any other real measure of political support, either on- or off-forum.

If a high-Influence nation in TSP went rogue and attempted to seize the Delegacy, your hypothetical low-Influence newbie Delegate would have no power to stop them by force except by kicking out their low-Influence supporters. It'd be as if the U.S. President's ability to order a nuclear strike was dependent on her approval rating multiplied by her age and number of days in office. If you rocketed Belschaft into the Delegacy, on the other hand, he could do far more and far more quickly than your low-Influence newbie. Why? Not because he currently had more democratic or political support, but because his Influence score alone is enough to make him a member of the regional aristocracy. And nothing TSP puts in its constitution can change that fact.

However GCR leaders choose to run their regions, the impact of Influence on a Delegate's ability to use Regional Controls makes them de facto aristocracies. The differences between the governing systems of TP and TSP amount to nothing more than window dressing; the power dynamics at bottom are identical.

"Democracy only works if people agree to do it" is redundant. That's obviously the case, because that's the literal definition of democracy.

The qualifiers in that statement were important. In the GCRs, the "people" who are agreeing to do it are the not all the people, but only the "[people who control] the upper levels of Influence." The elites. The people who matter. If those people were to change their minds, none of the rest of the people of the region could do a thing about it. That's an aristocracy - and holding elections just means it's an aristocracy roleplaying at being a democracy.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I can't imagine a less productive debate than doing this with you, Naivetry. Nothing matters apparently.

Bottom line is there isn't actually some universal glut of activity in all the GCRs. Influence and the existence of security councils aren't driving activity away. Coups and invasions don't create long-lasting activity, and in fact do quite the opposite. There's nothing redeeming about this proposal. All it would do is throw GCRs into permanent instability, preventing any real communities to be able to root themselves and grow. Nothing about that is good for NS.

[Pierconium]

I can't imagine a less productive debate than doing this with you, Naivetry. Nothing matters apparently.

Bottom line is there isn't actually some universal glut of activity in all the GCRs. Influence and the existence of security councils aren't driving activity away. Coups and invasions don't create long-lasting activity, and in fact do quite the opposite. There's nothing redeeming about this proposal. All it would do is throw GCRs into permanent instability, preventing any real communities to be able to root themselves and grow. Nothing about that is good for NS.

You are the only person making those assertions.

The GCRs were not in permanent instability prior to Influence so on what basis do you make this claim? I don't recall you being here and active during that period of time. I'm fairly certain most of the GCRs can trace their current stability to pre-Influence events.

Likewise, if one keeps their head in the sand then it is highly unlikely that they would notice if things were stagnant beyond their limited field of view.

Most people that I have spoken with do see the merit in this, even if the absolute outline I have suggested isn't ideal.

[Glen-Rhodes]

The GCRs were not in permanent instability prior to Influence so on what basis do you make this claim? I don't recall you being here and active during that period of time. I'm fairly certain most of the GCRs can trace their current stability to pre-Influence events.

Your own justification for this is that it would lead to less stability:

"From its implementation, the GCRs in particular have modified their structures so that there is no intrigue in their internal politics and no threat from outside."
"...The manipulation of Influence within the GCRs has created a static environment where a rogue Delegate or coup is simply a minor and very temporary inconvenience rather than a major gameplay event or rallying cry."

The entire OP is about how Delegates need to be less secure, coups need to be able to happen more often, and when they do happen, they need to be big deals and not "temporary inconveniences." It's only after you were called out on this that you've started saying you're not asking for that. There's literally no other reason why you would ask for removing influence in GCRs, other than you don't want high-influence nations to be able to block coups and invasions.

Likewise, if one keeps their head in the sand then it is highly unlikely that they would notice if things were stagnant beyond their limited field of view.

Again, your region has an amazingly low endorsement limit. It has very little community engagement. Your regional government is the standard-bearer among GCRs for a walled garden of elites who let people enter the upper echelons of power only rarely. Meanwhile, TSP is pioneering in-game governance using the RMB and polls. We have regular elections with many contested seats. We've seen a large influx in new players, and have given them the room and tools to grow and become leaders. Our regional security council isn't an all-powerful dictatorship. And, no, our last coup didn't spur activity or help our community in any way at all.

TSP doesn't need the game code to change to find ways to make ourselves a better region.