A change to Influence

[Pierconium]

Yes, I provided one possible outcome. Others have since been provided.

Threat does not equal instability.

Again, you only speak of TSP. I'm not talking about the Pacific. If I were here speaking only about the Pacific then I would not be suggesting this. The greatest thing the game did for the NPO was add Influence. Through its manipulation the historic threat to its position disappeared completely. It has been both a blessing and a bit of a curse, but I'm not here arguing a gameplay ideology, unlike others. I truly believe, and others from other gameplay ideological backgrounds support this view as well, that Influence has hampered the game.

I believe you and I will simply have to agree to disagree.

[Escape from Trump]

I have my own idea for a change for influence. Instead of being based solely on how long one has been in the region and their endorsements, why not add a few more factors? Firstly, wouldn't it make sense for a regional officer to get more influence just for being an officer, and a bit of influence for each thing they have authority for? If you're wondering how that would effect R/D, this would make it harder for raiders to get rid of those pesky officers who reverse their damage. This seems more realistic too, because obviously, officers are more influential, right? Another thing; what about some influence added for every RMB post that isn't suppressed by mods or officers, and wasn't self-deleted? In addition to the realism thing from earlier, you'll find that this will make the RMB much more active and interesting.

[Kitzerland]

I have my own idea for a change for influence. Instead of being based solely on how long one has been in the region and their endorsements, why not add a few more factors? Firstly, wouldn't it make sense for a regional officer to get more influence just for being an officer, and a bit of influence for each thing they have authority for? If you're wondering how that would effect R/D, this would make it harder for raiders to get rid of those pesky officers who reverse their damage. This seems more realistic too, because obviously, officers are more influential, right? Another thing; what about some influence added for every RMB post that isn't suppressed by mods or officers, and wasn't self-deleted? In addition to the realism thing from earlier, you'll find that this will make the RMB much more active and interesting.

So, constantly saying pointless stuff in the RMB gives you more influence?

[Escape from Trump]

I have my own idea for a change for influence. Instead of being based solely on how long one has been in the region and their endorsements, why not add a few more factors? Firstly, wouldn't it make sense for a regional officer to get more influence just for being an officer, and a bit of influence for each thing they have authority for? If you're wondering how that would effect R/D, this would make it harder for raiders to get rid of those pesky officers who reverse their damage. This seems more realistic too, because obviously, officers are more influential, right? Another thing; what about some influence added for every RMB post that isn't suppressed by mods or officers, and wasn't self-deleted? In addition to the realism thing from earlier, you'll find that this will make the RMB much more active and interesting.

So, constantly saying pointless stuff in the RMB gives you more influence?

No that's spam, which would be suppresed by an officer or a mod, and therefore not count.

[Frisbeeteria]

No that's spam, which would be suppresed by an officer or a mod,

Never gonna happen, I'm afraid. I can't see admin adding a feature that rewards spamming. Make no mistake, that's how it would be used. It wouldn't necessarily look like spam - it might just look like a nice conversation - but it would be incredibly easy to set up two browsers and two puppets to post on some RMB for several hours, if it gave them access to extra influence.

I've seen schoolkid regions with 10,000 pages of RMB posts a year. No suppressed posts, either, just normal conversation using our RMBs in lieu of texting during school. As for mod suppression, I'd be surprised if we average more than 20-50 mod-suppressed posts a week. Compared to the overall forum volume, that's a tiny drop in a HUUUUGE bucket.

No, influence for RMB posts is a terrible idea, and I'd campaign heavily against it if needed.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

>>making it easier to oppose entrenched Delegates

I'm not sure how losing influence makes that eaiser in the R/D angle. Maybe in the terms of an interior coup, where you're trying to clear out other officers as an RO or something, but general influence is what's on your side versus an unwanted delegate. It's what stops raiders from clearing out all the natives (and native endorsements) right off the bat. It's what makes attrition runs as a whole a thing - trying to get a foothold in, and using influence so they can't eject natives with it. It's not like defender beating the raiders and then the raiders actually trying to keep a foothold and fight back is often a thing - we've often already got little influence thanks to fighting regular defender runs and can easily be ejected, not to mention defenders usually out-piling us So yeah, maybe if you're a malcontent BC RO that wants to clean house and take over on a whim - sure, lower or no influence being in your way would help a lot. But it's also a game over then - you clear out anyone who opposes you, and the only way to come back from that is to flat outnumber you in a jump.

[Roavin]

-snipped for length-

I'm not going to say you're necessarily wrong on many of those points, but seeing it that way (for TSP) is surely reductionist.

TSP has a Council on Regional Security, which is a group of trusted WA nations that are permitted to hold endorsement counts higher than the cap, and thereby (thanks to the current GCR influence rules) hold higher influence than regular nations. In case of a coup, by say a rogue Delegate, or even a rogue CRS member, there is sufficient influence and endorsements there to effectively fight against it. This is, presumably, who you're referring to as the "elites".

To become a CRS member, one must fulfill certain requirements regarding endorsement count and influence, fill out an application, be vetted, and then be confirmed by a democratic vote. While it's not an outright election, it's still a process that combines the democratic principles core to the South Pacific (being, still, the oldest democracy in the game) as well as meritocratic principles to ensure only nations that are sufficiently trusted and trustworthy are granted the privilege.

My use of the word "privilege" here is intentional - being on the CRS is not a matter of prestige, and those that seek that position for purposes of prestige are likely not going to get it. Rather, it's a role of sacrifice as a service to the region they hold dear. A CRS member is required to actively look for and deal with threats to the security of the region. A CRS member sacrifices the flexibility of their single World Assembly membership - Nations like Farengeto, Sandaoguo, or Drugged Monkeys were all involved actively or passively in operations requiring a mobile WA, which they are now unable to do. The CRS is also not a group of friends. Kringalia and SJS Republic wouldn't even say "Hi" if they passed each other on the streets, but they do lay those differences to the side for the greater good of the region and work together as they should.

So - no. TSP is not an aristocracy roleplaying as a democracy. This is the structure of a meritocratic democracy.

[Naivetry]

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

I'm not sure what gives you the impression that I think nothing matters. I think democratic principles are lovely, and when I was active in the game I would never have worked for a region that didn't have them. Even appearances matter, because they affect the type of person who chooses to participate in your community, the level of participation you get, and (we can all hope) the motivations behind that participation. But there's principles and then there's realpolitik. My only point here is that the principles you hold and under which you operate do not correspond with the actual power dynamics established by the code. Do you disagree, or do you just claim that it doesn't matter?

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.

I really do not see this promoting instability. I see it encouraging attentiveness - but not to a degree that should alarm you. From what I've seen, TSP is doing fine. TNP is doing fine. Y'all are involved with the daily operation of your region in-game, and doing all the right sorts of outreach to ordinary nations. All this would do would be to up the stakes of a game you're already winning. If running a region is like running on a treadmill, this is not like increasing the speed or incline of the treadmill to make your job harder - it's just sticking a slide behind the treadmill that will make it harder to get back on if you fall off. You're not presently in danger of falling off. You would be okay regardless.

Minor disagreement with you on coups. Sure, most coups do not create long-lasting activity. They're often destructive and purely self-serving implosions plagued by infighting and power-tripping Delegates. But when the Empire in TEP unseated Gnidrah back in the day, it did in fact spur a revitalization of the regional community. Granted TEP was unusual, as there was a unique internal element at play there in cooperation with an outside force. But I'd argue that some of TSP's current activity and engagement with the NS world as a whole can be traced to coups (or the threat of them) as well. (I'm thinking Sedge's, but perhaps I'm forgetting an earlier one; I definitely recall TSP getting more concerned about what was happening in the world right after Neutral Territory. Y'all were famously isolationist and detached from the in-game region prior to that.) Point being, though, circumstances vary enough that I don't condemn a coup until I see how the people leading it are conducting themselves, and how that affects the health of the region.

It's like pruning a tree. Do it carefully, and the tree will recover and flourish to a greater degree than before. Cut branches off at random, as most people do, and you may mutilate it terribly. That doesn't mean all pruning is evil; just that it needs to be done judiciously - i.e., in the right season, when the tree is dormant - and with an eye to the health of the tree rather than just a desire for firewood.

The real problem with coups is that NS is full of arsonists rather than gardeners.

*snip*

*tips hat to Roavin* I don't think we've met; thanks for the engagement!

So - no. TSP is not an aristocracy roleplaying as a democracy. This is the structure of a meritocratic democracy.

What else does aristocracy mean? An aristocracy is literally government by the "best" people. The mechanisms TSP has adopted for picking who gets to be in the aristocracy are democratic, but just as a constitutional monarchy is still a monarchy, a constitutional aristocracy is still an aristocracy.

My argument here is that Influence subverts the inherently democratic nature of the endorsement system by adding a layer - time with that number of endorsements - which turns high-Influence nations into the equivalent of a noble house. I admire TSP's efforts to insert democracy into the nobility-selection process. But you could still institute endorsement caps without Influence, thus preserving a margin of safety as large as you wanted to make it. And you could still have a security council of un-ejectable nations under the system I proposed. It's just that, under a system where immunity to ejection was determined purely by your number of endorsements in relationship to those of the Delegate, you'd always have to work directly with the nations which supported you rather than relying on a once-off election followed by a waiting game.

To be honest with you all, I see my suggestion as having much more of an effect on the R/D side than in the GCRs. Any GCR community worth its salt would be able to adapt quickly - and probably seamlessly - to the system I proposed, since GCR security councils already depend on endorsements in order to gain greater Influence in the first place.

[Galiantus VII]

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?

I really like your idea, Naivetry. It gives more staying power to opposing factions within a region, which opens the door for much more interesting politics. The balance achieved by giving non-WA nations some protection is amazing. Maybe we could flesh this out a bit into something the admin would like.

If I could add to it, I would actually increase the detail of your idea with a tiered system kind of like this, for WA nations:
0-5% endorsements = no influence cost to eject (like you said, WA nations are a real threat)
5-10% endorsements = influence kicks in, like normal
10-50% endorsements = significant increase in influence cost to eject
50-100+% endorsements = impossible to eject

So a decent group of cross-endorsed WA nations in the region would be capable of maintaining a fairly constant presence in the region even if the WAD was intent on eliminating them, and factions with sizes similar to the size of the faction of the WAD would not have much difficulty surviving.

Perhaps we could also add some kind of "endorsement lag" so that leaders with a lot of support not fully cross-endorsed can have an extra update in the region, should their supporters be suddenly removed.

I would also like to point out that, because of the difference between WA and non-WA nations, nations with a lot of influence could be very strategic about whether or not they are in the WA, because depending on the circumstances it may be more valuable to be in or out of the WA, and making the transition from being non-WA to the WA against a sitting delegate could be suicide. In light of that, I think influence decay due to being outside of a region should be nerfed or completely eliminated for WA member nations, so that the presence of influence isn't totally removed because of poor decisions or bad luck.

[Galiantus VII]

No that's spam, which would be suppresed by an officer or a mod,

Never gonna happen, I'm afraid. I can't see admin adding a feature that rewards spamming. Make no mistake, that's how it would be used. It wouldn't necessarily look like spam - it might just look like a nice conversation - but it would be incredibly easy to set up two browsers and two puppets to post on some RMB for several hours, if it gave them access to extra influence.

I've seen schoolkid regions with 10,000 pages of RMB posts a year. No suppressed posts, either, just normal conversation using our RMBs in lieu of texting during school. As for mod suppression, I'd be surprised if we average more than 20-50 mod-suppressed posts a week. Compared to the overall forum volume, that's a tiny drop in a HUUUUGE bucket.

No, influence for RMB posts is a terrible idea, and I'd campaign heavily against it if needed.

Maybe not for RMB posts, but what about dispatches? We already up-vote dispatches, and we can feature dispatches on the WFE. Why not reward superb writers with more influence based on up-votes and the number of regions their dispatches are featured in? You don't have to moderate it, and the only potential abuse I see for it is in the case of raiders trying to influence-farm with empty dispatches (maybe don't give influence to WA nations' dispatches?). In lieu of current ideas, it could be a good alternative supplemental way for non-WA nations to gain influence.

[Amy Madison]

But that merely rewards people who are excellent writers, not necessarily overall contribution to region activity. As someone who happens to think highly of their writing skill, that's a nice idea, but not really conducive to the overall goal.

Maybe there could be a way for a WA delegate to temporarily increase the rate of influence gain for a specific nation, as a reward for service or as part of regional office?

[Galiantus VII]

But that merely rewards people who are excellent writers, not necessarily overall contribution to region activity. As someone who happens to think highly of their writing skill, that's a nice idea, but not really conducive to the overall goal.

Maybe there could be a way for a WA delegate to temporarily increase the rate of influence gain for a specific nation, as a reward for service or as part of regional office?

We'd have to address the problem of the WA delegate just constantly picking one of his puppets, because that's exactly how people would use that kind of system. I would be inclined to simply place an influence cost on granting the reward, but (1) it would be damaging for the cost to exceed the total influence the nation would gain, and (2) if the cost is lower than the gain, it does nothing to solve the problem. I also see potential problems with just simply allowing the delegate to instantly gift influence to whoever he wants. Maybe it could require a second or third nation to approve of the gift with a small amount of influence; and of course the total influence gain over the period of time would exceed the cost to the delegate and the WA nations that approved.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Something like 50% would basically mean that endorsement caps would at a maximum, ever get set at 50%... It also screws places like Europe, which don't have endorsement caps. The lack of an endorsement cap means that quite a few of our players have more than 50%. Also, small regions, like The Nether (if Wallenburg is reading this, I happen to use his region to bug-test, since with 4 players, there's a very low turn-around time...), have 2 endorsements. That means the Delegate wouldn't be able to eject... oh, anyone.

[Amy Madison]

50% may not be the best threshold, that's true. But I do like the idea of certain people being 'too powerful' to simply banject straight out, without a protracted campaign back and forth.

In theory, a great way to solve some of the logjam trying to be solved here and in other discussions would be to make it that spending influence could risk you losing endorsements. BUT, that would be very tricky, as some players (especially in GCRs) might only reblog now and then, not often enough to fix it, and it would be 'taking a choice' away from the endorsing nations. So in practice... maybe not workable.

[Eluvatar]

Only preventing the ejection of nations with a large number of endorsements, and rendering the ejection of nations with few endorsements free, would not leave it practically possible to remove a delegate in a large category of circumstances because a delegate could potentially eject arbitrarily many endorsements of other contenders for the Delegacy. Indeed, I imagine that under most circumstances you could eject starting from the nation with the fewest endorsements until you'd ejected nearly everyone else.

Influence in the feeders and sinkers has been changed significantly since 2008 or 2011: the nations in those regions are effectively limited to about the influence they've obtained over the last six months (or the influence they'd have obtained with 10 endorsements over the last six months). This means that to retain large amounts of influence, nations must retain large amounts of endorsements.

The real problem with coups is that NS is full of arsonists rather than gardeners.

Making it easier to eject lots of nations without consequence helps arsonists. Gardeners are less likely to want to perform ejections, whether of many nations or of long-time nations, no?

That change accomplished nothing.

That appears to be fairly clearly not the case to me. I base my impression on events since the change in Lazarus and Osiris.

Finally, I am not convinced by arguments that the feeders are really all the same. Statistical examinations of endorsement and influence levels have indicated otherwise, for one thing. If there is interest, I can present some of those findings.

[Pierconium]

Only preventing the ejection of nations with a large number of endorsements, and rendering the ejection of nations with few endorsements free, would not leave it practically possible to remove a delegate in a large category of circumstances because a delegate could potentially eject arbitrarily many endorsements of other contenders for the Delegacy. Indeed, I imagine that under most circumstances you could eject starting from the nation with the fewest endorsements until you'd ejected nearly everyone else.

Influence in the feeders and sinkers has been changed significantly since 2008 or 2011: the nations in those regions are effectively limited to about the influence they've obtained over the last six months (or the influence they'd have obtained with 10 endorsements over the last six months). This means that to retain large amounts of influence, nations must retain large amounts of endorsements.

The real problem with coups is that NS is full of arsonists rather than gardeners.

Making it easier to eject lots of nations without consequence helps arsonists. Gardeners are less likely to want to perform ejections, whether of many nations or of long-time nations, no?

That change accomplished nothing.

That appears to be fairly clearly not the case to me. I base my impression on events since the change in Lazarus and Osiris.

Finally, I am not convinced by arguments that the feeders are really all the same. Statistical examinations of endorsement and influence levels have indicated otherwise, for one thing. If there is interest, I can present some of those findings.

I would be interested in those findings. And I would ask what you mean with regards to Laz and Osiris? If one addressed just the feeders, and not the sinkers and TRR, I believe my point stands.