NationStates

This is a topic to discuss a potential feature wherein the site will grant special protected status to nations who have the most endorsements even if they're not the Delegate. There is another topic which, once opened, will be the official space for comments. This topic, however, is for players to discuss the feature with one another and ask clarifying questions. The description of the feature may be revised prior to opening the other topic for comments for better clarity, or to correct any mistakes.

Ground Rules
This topic is intended to be a way for site administration and the community to discuss the feature and improve understanding. This topic will not be permitted to become a flaming free-for-all of an argument, useless to everyone and infuriating to many.

1. A player may post using one (and only one) nation in this topic. Do not use puppet nations.
2. Please address other players only in a completely respectful and cordial manner.
3. Please keep in mind site rules in general and the bad faith policy specifically (which applies to this topic).

Eluvatar wrote:Delegate-Elect
There was a previous plan called "Delegate Elect". This is not that plan.

This is the feature being considered:

1. The game will track endorsements live. A “World Assembly Endorsements Given” census scale will be introduced, and the “World Assembly Endorsements” census scale and ranking will be updated whenever an endorsement is given, withdrawn, or a nation moves.
2. Whenever the most endorsed nation is not the region’s incumbent WA Delegate, that nation is the region’s WA Delegate-Elect.
3. Whenever there is a WA Delegate-Elect:
   
   1. Neither the incumbent WA Delegate nation, nor any Regional Officer nation appointed by them (alternatively, any Regional Officer nation, period: under no circumstances will this affect a Founder nation, however), may eject the WA Delegate-Elect nation or any nation endorsing it.
   2. If the incumbent WA Delegate nation’s endorsement count exceeds the WA Delegate-Elect’s, the WA Delegate-Elect loses their status. (This would leave them and their endorsers open to ejection again.)
4. When a region goes through a WA Update, if there is a nation in the region with more (valid) endorsements than the incumbent WA Delegate, the nation with the most (valid) endorsements will become the WA Delegate. (This is exactly the same as things are now.)

The goal of this change is to allow players to take action at any time which may have an immediate effect (and may also be immediately reversible).

Please provide input regarding the pros and cons of this form of Delegate-Elect. If you have suggestions for improving this plan, I would welcome them.

Please discuss the pros and cons of this form of Delegate-Elect or related matters. If you have questions about the feature as described, please feel free to ask. Please keep in mind, however, that I do not guarantee I will read every post in this topic with full care and consideration: that is the purpose of the request for comments topic.

I personally think this is a bad idea. Previously, there have been suggestions of removing update/making continuous update so that the delegate changes as soon as they get the most endorsements. To me, this seems like a very similar thing. While there is technically a chance to counter, this is effectively making R/D an out of update numbers game.
If you can get delegate elect out of update, raiders can move into a region pretty much whenever they want, and as long as we get enough endorsements, become untouchable. This means that we can raid any time during the day, and as said in other threads its unreasonable to expect defenders and natives to be on the watch 24/7.
Conversely, that also affects occupations, defenders can move on an occupation at any time, and as long as they get enough in, become untouchable. If you won't ask natives and defenders to watch 24/7, you can't ask raiders to do so. Implementing this change would reduce gameplay to a numbers game, where its a matter of who can get the most pilers. No skill, no tactics, no fun, just numbers.

Raionitu wrote:I personally think this is a bad idea. Previously, there have been suggestions of removing update/making continuous update so that the delegate changes as soon as they get the most endorsements. To me, this seems like a very similar thing. While there is technically a chance to counter, this is effectively making R/D an out of update numbers game.
If you can get delegate elect out of update, raiders can move into a region pretty much whenever they want, and as long as we get enough endorsements, become untouchable. This means that we can raid any time during the day, and as said in other threads its unreasonable to expect defenders and natives to be on the watch 24/7.
Conversely, that also affects occupations, defenders can move on an occupation at any time, and as long as they get enough in, become untouchable. If you won't ask natives and defenders to watch 24/7, you can't ask raiders to do so. Implementing this change would reduce gameplay to a numbers game, where its a matter of who can get the most pilers. No skill, no tactics, no fun, just numbers.

This, This a thousand times and then some more.

Raionitu wrote:I personally think this is a bad idea. Previously, there have been suggestions of removing update/making continuous update so that the delegate changes as soon as they get the most endorsements. To me, this seems like a very similar thing. While there is technically a chance to counter, this is effectively making R/D an out of update numbers game.
If you can get delegate elect out of update, raiders can move into a region pretty much whenever they want, and as long as we get enough endorsements, become untouchable. This means that we can raid any time during the day, and as said in other threads its unreasonable to expect defenders and natives to be on the watch 24/7.
Conversely, that also affects occupations, defenders can move on an occupation at any time, and as long as they get enough in, become untouchable. Implementing this change would reduce gameplay to a numbers game, where its a matter of who can get the most pilers. No skill, no tactics, no fun, just numbers.

Pretty much this. Where R/D was in the past a matter of watching, timing, and jumping, it will literally turn into a "Whoever calls the most friends in between updates wins." There's also the matter of GCR security, which I will hit when I get more time to post a wall, unless someone else hits on that exact issue in the meantime.

With the combined proposed changes, to steal a quote;

"Taking Osiris as an example, a Guardian could decide to coup one night at 4 a.m. when they know Syberis is going to be asleep thanks to rotating updates, and even if they miss they'd be Delegate-Elect and impervious to banjection if they simply manage to surpass his endo count. And they'd be unlikely to miss anyway because the admins are being gracious enough to tell them pretty much exactly when the god damn region is updating."

If the incumbent WA Delegate nation’s endorsement count exceeds the WA Delegate-Elect’s, the WA Delegate-Elect loses their status. (This would leave them and their endorsers open to ejection again.)

would the incumbent WA Delegate be considered the WA Delegate-Elect then?

Cuz I'm considering what to do within my region's border control authorities.
A.k.a will I be able to eject my OWN endorsers? Because sometimes there can be an annoying AF spammer who happens to be WA endorsing me.

This will ruin R/D in my honest opinion. It will also mess up GCRs. It will basically just make R/D and GCR coups about getting more friends in at any time vs getting in right before it updates, and making them unbannable is worse since you'd get to see them sit there and wait for you to update to take the region. As the other have said before me Defenders cannot be online 24/7 to counter raiding this way.

Forget about missing update, this could be easily abused to make invading even easier. If you get enough people to jump say a minute before update to push someone above the delegate, the delegate and regional government have absolutely nothing they can do. They can't eject anybody and they have no time to ask for endorsements to push themselves back up above. It would take just about any skill needed out of R/D. And that isn't even mentioning all the problems involving only regional governments.

This would hurt any regional government. Instead of having a few nations trusted enough to have higher endorsement counts and to accrue lots of influence, this would practically force most large regions from instituting a strict endorsement which will only hurt the strength, stability, and health of that region. This change is not fun. It isn't interesting. It just removes the skill and/or politics necessary to become delegate.

This seems like a surefire way to make R/D far too easy and boring, and make any region with an executive delegacy impossible to keep remotely stable. I see no benefit at all.

Raionitu wrote:I personally think this is a bad idea. Previously, there have been suggestions of removing update/making continuous update so that the delegate changes as soon as they get the most endorsements. To me, this seems like a very similar thing. While there is technically a chance to counter, this is effectively making R/D an out of update numbers game.

If you can get delegate elect out of update, raiders can move into a region pretty much whenever they want, and as long as we get enough endorsements, become untouchable. This means that we can raid any time during the day, and as said in other threads its unreasonable to expect defenders and natives to be on the watch 24/7.

Conversely, that also affects occupations, defenders can move on an occupation at any time, and as long as they get enough in, become untouchable. If you won't ask natives and defenders to watch 24/7, you can't ask raiders to do so. Implementing this change would reduce gameplay to a numbers game, where its a matter of who can get the most pilers. No skill, no tactics, no fun, just numbers.

Allowing more players to participate is part of the purpose of this. I should perhaps edit the "The goal of this change" line to call that out, too.

My intention is that by making the loss of Delegate-Elect as immediate as its acquisition, the incumbent Delegate will retain a serious advantage and have options to shut things down. (Just, not by themselves).

If you believe that this goal is not as important for the game as some other goals, please explain how and why once the Request for Comments opens in a few weeks.

Syberis wrote:"Taking Osiris as an example, a Guardian could decide to coup one night at 4 a.m. when they know Syberis is going to be asleep thanks to rotating updates, and even if they miss they'd be Delegate-Elect and impervious to banjection if they simply manage to surpass his endo count. And they'd be unlikely to miss anyway because the admins are being gracious enough to tell them pretty much exactly when the god damn region is updating."

Like with influence, and liberation resolutions, the hope for this change would be that it would make "game over" scenarios less, not more, likely. If it does, that would be a problem.

Queen Yuno wrote:

If the incumbent WA Delegate nation’s endorsement count exceeds the WA Delegate-Elect’s, the WA Delegate-Elect loses their status. (This would leave them and their endorsers open to ejection again.)

would the incumbent WA Delegate be considered the WA Delegate-Elect then?

Cuz I'm considering what to do within my region's border control authorities.
A.k.a will I be able to eject my OWN endorsers? Because sometimes there can be an annoying AF spammer who happens to be WA endorsing me.

No, there would only be a Delegate-Elect if it's a different nation from the incumbent delegate.

Drasnia wrote:This would hurt any regional government. Instead of having a few nations trusted enough to have higher endorsement counts and to accrue lots of influence, this would practically force most large regions from instituting a strict endorsement which will only hurt the strength, stability, and health of that region. This change is not fun. It isn't interesting. It just removes the skill and/or politics necessary to become delegate.

Why would trusted nations having endorsements become a problem?

Eluvatar wrote:

Syberis wrote:"Taking Osiris as an example, a Guardian could decide to coup one night at 4 a.m. when they know Syberis is going to be asleep thanks to rotating updates, and even if they miss they'd be Delegate-Elect and impervious to banjection if they simply manage to surpass his endo count. And they'd be unlikely to miss anyway because the admins are being gracious enough to tell them pretty much exactly when the god damn region is updating."

Like with influence, and liberation resolutions, the hope for this change would be that it would make "game over" scenarios less, not more, likely. If it does, that would be a problem.

How does making it impossible to react to coups once they're under way lessen the likelihood of "game over" scenarios? The only place this would seem to help would be traditional defenders trying a liberation; but even then it makes raids so much easier on the other side of the coin.

Eluvatar wrote:

Drasnia wrote:This would hurt any regional government. Instead of having a few nations trusted enough to have higher endorsement counts and to accrue lots of influence, this would practically force most large regions from instituting a strict endorsement which will only hurt the strength, stability, and health of that region. This change is not fun. It isn't interesting. It just removes the skill and/or politics necessary to become delegate.

Why would trusted nations having endorsements become a problem?

Because you can't be sure you can trust them.

If you make it possible for anyone with a high endo count to gain the delegacy without fear of being banjected, you're not going to let people get high endo counts if you're the incumbent delegate.

[Moderator Edit - Cogitation] Fixed broken BBCode. Specifically, you were missing a "]". [/modedit]

Eluvatar wrote:

Drasnia wrote:This would hurt any regional government. Instead of having a few nations trusted enough to have higher endorsement counts and to accrue lots of influence, this would practically force most large regions from instituting a strict endorsement which will only hurt the strength, stability, and health of that region. This change is not fun. It isn't interesting. It just removes the skill and/or politics necessary to become delegate.

Why would trusted nations having endorsements become a problem?

Oh come on. You do GCR politics. How can you trust 100% any of TNP's Security Councillors? This change would only make usurping the elected delegate for them even more tempting as there'd be even less possible recourse.

I think this is a bad idea in its entirety, but it's especially ridiculous to not be able to eject any of the nations endoring the "delegate-elect." This makes GCR security essentially impossible, especially in situations where there might be intra-regional conflict.

Thanks for actively giving answers/responding to the community. I also think this change sucks and security will be a PAIN given that some GCR communities spent years building up their forums/Constitutions/spam threads. On a more personal level, I also had plans of copying TNP on relaxing the Endocaps and increasing all Guardian endos but turns out that might not be on the agenda anymore xD it's too difficult at this stage for me (I only have game mechanics to play with right now.)

Eluvatar wrote:No, there would only be a Delegate-Elect if it's a different nation from the incumbent delegate.

If the Delegate-Elect is given Border Control or has Border Control, will he be able to eject his OWN endorsers?

Eluvatar wrote:Allowing more players to participate is part of the purpose of this. I should perhaps edit the "The goal of this change" line to call that out, too.

My intention is that by making the loss of Delegate-Elect as immediate as its acquisition, the incumbent Delegate will retain a serious advantage and have options to shut things down. (Just, not by themselves).

It doesn't, though. Chances are, the majority of attempts to unseat a delegate will still occur at update, giving the incumbent no time to react. Even if the timing's off, and not everyone gets in on time, the lead likely gains the Del-elect position, and it turns into a piling game.
On the occurrence of a del-elect being created at a time when the delegate *actually has time to react*, the delegate still has little agency. The bulk of the forces piling in to prop up or unseat the delegacy are still going to be the same, established groups, who would have joined in for or against, regardless of the delegate's wishes- there's very few cases where r/d orgs actually care about the region they're targeting, outside of that it's a target.
So, the delegate retains about as much influence over the situation as before, just with even less security against being toppled, the same groups do what they usually do, bit with a heavier focus on piling and numbers, removing much of the skill element from the game, and the few people who get drawn in, who normally wouldn't, are mostly negligible.

Somyrion wrote:

Eluvatar wrote:Like with influence, and liberation resolutions, the hope for this change would be that it would make "game over" scenarios less, not more, likely. If it does, that would be a problem.

How does making it impossible to react to coups once they're under way lessen the likelihood of "game over" scenarios? The only place this would seem to help would be traditional defenders trying a liberation; but even then it makes raids so much easier on the other side of the coin.

It seems to me that only the ejection option, not others, would be removed from an incumbent Delegate's toolbox. (And even that would still be available against nations entering the region or joining the WA that haven't endorsed the Delegate-Elect yet).

Somyrion wrote:

Eluvatar wrote:Why would trusted nations having endorsements become a problem?

Because you can't be sure you can trust them.

If you make it possible for anyone with a high endo count to gain the delegacy without fear of being banjected, you're not going to let people get high endo counts if you're the incumbent delegate.

This is a political game. I would hope that there should be potential consequences to trusting the wrong people?

Funkadelia wrote:I think this is a bad idea in its entirety, but it's especially ridiculous to not be able to eject any of the nations endoring the "delegate-elect." This makes GCR essentially impossible, especially in situations where there might be intra-regional conflict.

It seems to me that applying this to the Delegate-Elect nation only is effectively meaningless.

I've not seen endorsement gaps in large regions move all that fast, generally. Why would it be so much easier to exceed the incumbent Delegate's endorsement count now than in the past?

Queen Yuno wrote:Thanks for actively giving answers/responding to the community.

Eluvatar wrote:No, there would only be a Delegate-Elect if it's a different nation from the incumbent delegate.

If the Delegate-Elect is given Border Control or has Border Control, will he be able to eject his OWN endorsers?

Under version a, so to speak, that would depend on who appointed them. Under version b, I would imagine not. However, if there's a good reason for the Delegate-Elect themselves to be able to do that, then they can have an exception to the exception.

Miporin wrote:

Eluvatar wrote:Allowing more players to participate is part of the purpose of this. I should perhaps edit the "The goal of this change" line to call that out, too.

My intention is that by making the loss of Delegate-Elect as immediate as its acquisition, the incumbent Delegate will retain a serious advantage and have options to shut things down. (Just, not by themselves).

It doesn't, though. Chances are, the majority of attempts to unseat a delegate will still occur at update, giving the incumbent no time to react. Even if the timing's off, and not everyone gets in on time, the lead likely gains the Del-elect position, and it turns into a piling game.

On the occurrence of a del-elect being created at a time when the delegate *actually has time to react*, the delegate still has little agency. The bulk of the forces piling in to prop up or unseat the delegacy are still going to be the same, established groups, who would have joined in for or against, regardless of the delegate's wishes- there's very few cases where r/d orgs actually care about the region they're targeting, outside of that it's a target.

So, the delegate retains about as much influence over the situation as before, just with even less security against being toppled, the same groups do what they usually do, bit with a heavier focus on piling and numbers, removing much of the skill element from the game, and the few people who get drawn in, who normally wouldn't, are mostly negligible.

I think that some of the assumptions you're making could be questioned. If you were to make an RFC comment with this basic argument, I would be especially interested in it if you could examine them more in that comment.

Miporin wrote:

Eluvatar wrote:Allowing more players to participate is part of the purpose of this. I should perhaps edit the "The goal of this change" line to call that out, too.

My intention is that by making the loss of Delegate-Elect as immediate as its acquisition, the incumbent Delegate will retain a serious advantage and have options to shut things down. (Just, not by themselves).

It doesn't, though. Chances are, the majority of attempts to unseat a delegate will still occur at update, giving the incumbent no time to react. Even if the timing's off, and not everyone gets in on time, the lead likely gains the Del-elect position, and it turns into a piling game.
On the occurrence of a del-elect being created at a time when the delegate *actually has time to react*, the delegate still has little agency. The bulk of the forces piling in to prop up or unseat the delegacy are still going to be the same, established groups, who would have joined in for or against, regardless of the delegate's wishes- there's very few cases where r/d orgs actually care about the region they're targeting, outside of that it's a target.
So, the delegate retains about as much influence over the situation as before, just with even less security against being toppled, the same groups do what they usually do, bit with a heavier focus on piling and numbers, removing much of the skill element from the game, and the few people who get drawn in, who normally wouldn't, are mostly negligible.

And indeed, in concurrence with this point, it also means that if someone does try to do something like this at update, and they all move in some time before the region updates, the sitting delegate would not be allowed to banject the offender or anyone endorsing them before update happens while their endorsement count is lower than the offender.

I'm against this. This would allow my region that I am in to be more easily raided by Fear Johnism and their allied regions more easier and it would be a major pain being under a constant threat.

Funkadelia wrote:

Miporin wrote:
It doesn't, though. Chances are, the majority of attempts to unseat a delegate will still occur at update, giving the incumbent no time to react. Even if the timing's off, and not everyone gets in on time, the lead likely gains the Del-elect position, and it turns into a piling game.
On the occurrence of a del-elect being created at a time when the delegate *actually has time to react*, the delegate still has little agency. The bulk of the forces piling in to prop up or unseat the delegacy are still going to be the same, established groups, who would have joined in for or against, regardless of the delegate's wishes- there's very few cases where r/d orgs actually care about the region they're targeting, outside of that it's a target.
So, the delegate retains about as much influence over the situation as before, just with even less security against being toppled, the same groups do what they usually do, bit with a heavier focus on piling and numbers, removing much of the skill element from the game, and the few people who get drawn in, who normally wouldn't, are mostly negligible.

And indeed, in concurrence with this point, it also means that if someone does try to do something like this at update, and they all move in some time before the region updates, the sitting delegate would not be allowed to banject the offender or anyone endorsing them before update happens while their endorsement count is lower than the offender.

That is correct. If and when the incumbent Delegate's endorsement count would exceed the (now ex-)Delegate Elect's, the Delegate-Elect and their endorsers would immediately become open to banjection again.

So do the admins intend to take our input or just argue with it? Is this solicitation of input just for show, like with influence and liberation resolutions?

This is a ridiculous idea. When you institute it, you ought to eliminate GCR influence to balance the struggle this is going to cause in regional security.

To be quite frank, this seems like Eluvatar's pet project. While that's alright, there has been near-unanimous opposition to it in this thread. To implement this would be not only to endanger GCR politics and ensure stagnancy for years in certain GCRs, while ensuring constant instability in others, it would be to dangerously and chaotically change R/D. Eluvatar, I beg you to take off any rose-colored glasses you might have and look at this idea for its repercussions. This idea does not stand pn its merits. By any measure, it would reduce meritocracy and democracy in GCRs to zero, and would almost certainly change R/D into a much bigger and more destructive game.

Eluvatar wrote:If the Delegate-Elect is given Border Control or has Border Control, will he be able to eject his OWN endorsers?
Under version a, so to speak, that would depend on who appointed them. Under version b, I would imagine not. However, if there's a good reason for the Delegate-Elect themselves to be able to do that, then they can have an exception to the exception.

To make themselves NO longer the Delegate Elect.

there are people who don't actually want to coup.

Cormactopia Prime wrote:So do the admins intend to take our input or just argue with it? Is this solicitation of input just for show, like with influence and liberation resolutions?

I would hope that by visibly engaging in the discussion it indicates that I am listening. I think interrogation of options and the reasons for them is one of the better ways to arrive at the why (or why not).

The solicitation of input is very much not for show. I care intensely about this game, and the communities that have developed in it. I wasn't around for the decision making process for influence, but to me it appeared as though the site admin(s) paid close attention to community feedback regarding liberation resolutions and, indeed, separated the SC from the GA in response to feedback. (Also, I believe the very idea for liberation resolutions came from the community, but I could be wrong about that).

It'd be misleading for me to say that this is a vote, because it isn't. I'm not going to count heads for or against any particular technical change. The thoughts and examples players post, however, are extremely valuable and will guide the process.

Big Bad Badger wrote:This is a ridiculous idea. When you institute it, you ought to eliminate GCR influence to balance the struggle this is going to cause in regional security.

I'm afraid I don't understand your reasoning very well. If you post something along these lines in the request for comments as a comment, I would very much encourage you to develop the reasoning further.

Digory Kirke wrote:To be quite frank, this seems like Eluvatar's pet project. While that's alright, there has been near-unanimous opposition to it in this thread. To implement this would be not only to endanger GCR politics and ensure stagnancy for years in certain GCRs, while ensuring constant instability in others, it would be to dangerously and chaotically change R/D. Eluvatar, I beg you to take off any rose-colored glasses you might have and look at this idea for its repercussions. This idea does not stand pn its merits. By any measure, it would reduce meritocracy and democracy in GCRs to zero, and would almost certainly change R/D into a much bigger and more destructive game.

I would agree that this is, in some sense, my pet project. I've thought on these matters considerably.

I think it's too soon to consider opposition near-unanimous. However, I am certainly going to be watching the overall picture.

I don't understand how this Delegate-Elect mechanic would reduce meritocracy and democracy in GCRs to zero (nor, indeed, quite what that means). I'm interested to know what you mean by it, and why.

I will agree that increasing the size of Gameplay by allowing more to participate is a goal of this possible feature, but I'm hazier on it being more destructive. I'd be interested in why you think that is the case.

Queen Yuno wrote:

Eluvatar wrote:If the Delegate-Elect is given Border Control or has Border Control, will he be able to eject his OWN endorsers?
Under version a, so to speak, that would depend on who appointed them. Under version b, I would imagine not. However, if there's a good reason for the Delegate-Elect themselves to be able to do that, then they can have an exception to the exception.

To make themselves NO longer the Delegate Elect.

there are people who don't actually want to coup.

Presumably they could also do this by leaving the region or resigning from the WA?

(Not saying no, just asking for further examination of the idea...)

In some GCR Constitutions, it's illegal for a Guardian to resign WA or they lose Guardianship (or citizenship if leave region.)
In other cases, a person is more likely to coup than be forced to regain 300-400 endos from scratch. Theyre not so willing to lose hard earned endo progress and would sooner "wait it out" than restart. The problem with this approach is that nations don't read, they automatically endorse the sitting delegate and ignore all else, which keeps the illegal Delegate as Delegate for weeks longer. For me it took a third of my term because I spammed TEP regularly XD
Anyway. See ya around! *runs away*

Strongly against this. It is hard enough for founderless regions and this will only make it easier to raid us if the delegate elect and all their endosers can't be ejected. They can just dog pile us and we're screwed.

It will also effectively kill Hell, as it destroys our ability to safely bring in nations in between the update. They just need to get the password and dog pile us and boom we're doomed.

Really wish we could come with ideas to help natives in the R/D game not make it even easier for raiders.