Founder Succession

[Mallorea and Riva]

The region shouldn't have to suffer because the founder made mistakes, except in those situations where the region should suffer because the founder made mistakes.

Okay then.

*** Warned for malicious quote editing ***

If you have a point to make, make it out in the open. Don't edit other's quotes.

[Aclion]

Okay then.

Failure to keep on the right side of the rules =/= failure to follow good security practices.

[Trotterdam]

Failure to keep on the right side of the rules =/= failure to follow good security practices.

If anything, breaking the game rules is a bigger sin than not being fully prepared at all times for rare events. Neither is the rest of the region's fault. So why should the rest of the region suffer for the latter but not the former?

[Tim-Opolis]

Failure to keep on the right side of the rules =/= failure to follow good security practices.

If anything, breaking the game rules is a bigger sin than not being fully prepared at all times for rare events. Neither is the rest of the region's fault. So why should the rest of the region suffer for the latter but not the former?

The region is the founder's property, in game terms. It is not the property of the other residents. If the Founder fails to declare a Successor, then what has to be assumed is they did not want their region to have a Successor. It is their right as founder to do what they wish in and for their region, as frustrating as it can be for other members of the region which may also be invested in it and consider it their home.

[Fauxia]

Just trying to bounce some ides here- what if the successor becomes founder but with influence? I’m wondering what y’all expect, though I’m not sure what it really changes.

I like BA idea if it isn’t too complicated

[Drop Your Pants]

Not sure if this has been asked yet so apologies if it has.

What happens if the founder is a non-exec? Will the successor also be non-exec?

[Impeck]

What happens if the founder gets refounded? Does the power go back to him?

[Caelapes]

Not sure if this has been asked yet so apologies if it has.

What happens if the founder is a non-exec? Will the successor also be non-exec?

Presumably naming a Successor would be a function of an executive founder, meaning that there would be no possibility for a Successor in non-exec founder regions.

[Frisbeeteria]

What happens if the founder gets refounded? Does the power go back to him?

I would think not. Once you've handed over the reins by ceasing to exist, the pathway back should be closed.

It's all hypothetical, since this hasn't been coded. That's how I'd code it, though.

[Kanglia]

What happens if the founder gets refounded? Does the power go back to him?

I would think not. Once you've handed over the reins by ceasing to exist, the pathway back should be closed.

It's all hypothetical, since this hasn't been coded. That's how I'd code it, though.

For me at least, that would be preferable. If a founder CTE's & then comes back with full exec powers again, that could cause a whole brouhaha with the Successor.

[Tananat]

I think Founder Succession should be automatic upon CTE, if the Founder has appointed someone then that is essentially all the permission or consent needed to have the foundership pass over. This will gradually reduce the number of founderless regions over time, but native security and wellbeing should probably come before keeping the stock of founderless regions up, especially when the War Zones exist.

Edit: Founder succession should also be permanent and irreversible unless 1. the founder has been deleted incorrectly either by glitch or error/overturned mod action which is rare or 2. the successor appoints the original founder as their successor and presses the resign button.

[Kylia Quilor]

I think Founder Succession should be automatic upon CTE, if the Founder has appointed someone then that is essentially all the permission or consent needed to have the foundership pass over. This will gradually reduce the number of founderless regions over time, but native security and wellbeing should probably come before keeping the stock of founderless regions up, especially when the War Zones exist.

Edit: Founder succession should also be permanent and irreversible unless 1. the founder has been deleted incorrectly either by glitch or error/overturned mod action which is rare or 2. the successor appoints the original founder as their successor and presses the resign button.

Don't pretend the Warzones count one bit for R/D, thanks.

[Tananat]

I think Founder Succession should be automatic upon CTE, if the Founder has appointed someone then that is essentially all the permission or consent needed to have the foundership pass over. This will gradually reduce the number of founderless regions over time, but native security and wellbeing should probably come before keeping the stock of founderless regions up, especially when the War Zones exist.

Edit: Founder succession should also be permanent and irreversible unless 1. the founder has been deleted incorrectly either by glitch or error/overturned mod action which is rare or 2. the successor appoints the original founder as their successor and presses the resign button.

Don't pretend the Warzones count one bit for R/D, thanks.

They exist for the purpose of R/D, regardless of the weight R/Ders put on them.

[Reploid Productions]

Don't pretend the Warzones count one bit for R/D, thanks.

They exist for the purpose of R/D, regardless of the weight R/Ders put on them.

Given the Warzones are GCRs and thus founderless, they really are not relevant to this discussion. Let's stick to the discussion of Founder Succession and the regions it would actually impact, thank you.

[Aclion]

Failure to keep on the right side of the rules =/= failure to follow good security practices.

If anything, breaking the game rules is a bigger sin than not being fully prepared at all times for rare events. Neither is the rest of the region's fault. So why should the rest of the region suffer for the latter but not the former?

I think your misunderstanding. I'm saying the founder should suffer[get deleted or whatever] but the region should not; not that losing founder status should be an alternative to getting punished for rule breaking.

And my biggest concern here isn't even who should suffer when founders get deleted, it's that makes the sort of exception Caelapes asking for makes r/d a factor in moderation decisions, which compromises the integrity of both gameplay, and moderation.

[United Massachusetts]

Wouldn't this sort of ruin R/D gameplay?

[Enfaru]

Wouldn't this sort of ruin R/D gameplay?

This policy now has my vote.

[Consular]

No, moderation should never be a tool in R/D gameplay

Considering that nations get deleted for reasons totally unrelated to the region (from posting past ban on the forums to getting declared DOS), I have to agree with Aclion. The region shouldn't have to suffer because the founder made mistakes.

Of course, if one of those mistakes was "failing to declare a successor", tough noogies. We mods shouldn't intercede in the other direction either.

Agreed. I think DEAT smashing a Founder should not invalidate their successor. That's punishing someone else who may be entirely innocent.

Reading through, I'm against this for a few reasons.

Firstly, both options of this idea reduces the number of founderless regions in play, which is obviously quite detrimental for R/D, and partially why previous attempts at this idea have been shut down.

In my version, I included the waiting periods before a founder can name their heir and before an heir who's inherited could name an heir of their own specifically so that there'd still be a potential trickle of regions into vulnerability in the hope of "appeasing" enough R/D players to get it through...

I guess I just don't think we should water down a great feature, or intentionally engineer flaws in it, just to satisfy naysayers who won't ever be pleased with it anyway. Especially when their reasons for opposing it are honestly pretty poor.

Just trying to bounce some ides here- what if the successor becomes founder but with influence? I’m wondering what y’all expect, though I’m not sure what it really changes.

Then they become the Founder and also have some influence? You do know Founders can get influence now, right?

Not sure if this has been asked yet so apologies if it has.

What happens if the founder is a non-exec? Will the successor also be non-exec?

A non-exec Founder would be unable to appoint a Successor.

What happens if the founder gets refounded? Does the power go back to him?

In my proposal, no. Transfer is total and irreversible.

Wouldn't this sort of ruin R/D gameplay?

These kinds of posts are honestly not very helpful. Have you read the opening post?

[Aclion]

Wouldn't this sort of ruin R/D gameplay?

Most of R/D will be unchanged, all those GCRs and old unfoundered region still exist, and tag raiding, which seems to make up the bulk of R/D still exists.
What will change is there will be fewer founder regions becoming vulnerable when they have to refound, but while that door closes a new one opens, raiders willing to invest the time can now infiltrate these regions and try to get named successor, and when we're talking about founder status that seems like a much more appropriate investment, and more interesting game, then simply sniping a refound.

[Kylia Quilor]

Don't pretend the Warzones count one bit for R/D, thanks.

They exist for the purpose of R/D, regardless of the weight R/Ders put on them.

Given the Warzones are GCRs and thus founderless, they really are not relevant to this discussion. Let's stick to the discussion of Founder Succession and the regions it would actually impact, thank you.

Except that Founder succession is implicitly bound up in R/D, so people asserting that the Warzones are relevant for R/D as part of their version of or argument for Founder succession *is* relevant.

<snip

Damnit, I hate agreeing with you man, but I think Consular hasthe right of it on all of these.

EDIT: Also, let's not encourage the notion of 'Raiders' trying to infiltrate to become successors so they mess with the region. That's the sort of deliberate community destruction that this game does not need.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Given the Warzones are GCRs and thus founderless, they really are not relevant to this discussion. Let's stick to the discussion of Founder Succession and the regions it would actually impact, thank you.

Except that Founder succession is implicitly bound up in R/D, so people asserting that the Warzones are relevant for R/D as part of their version of or argument for Founder succession *is* relevant.

<snip

Damnit, I hate agreeing with you man, but I think Consular hasthe right of it on all of these.

EDIT: Also, let's not encourage the notion of 'Raiders' trying to infiltrate to become successors so they mess with the region. That's the sort of deliberate community destruction that this game does not need.

Way back when founders were first being manually assigned to regions by moderators that's exactly what would happen. Groups would pretend to be natives and then try to lay claim to the founder position. Players WILL attempt to infiltrate regions to become their successor in the event of a founder CTE. Why wouldn't they? Guaranteed win. That's the risk the first founder would be taking in naming someone their successor.

[Scardino]

Option One: If a Founder CTEs after having appointed a Successor, that Successor would take over as Founder of the region automatically.

Positives: If a Founder CTEs unexpectedly the region does not unnecessarily suffer for that. Power would not default to its Delegate, which can be dangerous, and the region is rewarded for being prepared and appointing a Successor by still being able to enjoy the benefits of a Founder. Encourages Founder to be very careful with giving the Successor role out, because if they CTE that nation gets everything, and encourages Founders to remain active.
Negatives: The Founder may accidentally CTE, forfeiting their region to their Successor when not intending to pass over the reins just yet. Unless the new Founder agrees to transfer it back there is nothing they can do.
Contentious: The mechanic greatly enhances regional security, though at the risk of accidental coups. Number of founderless regions would maybe decrease.

This sounds like an interesting dynamic. For those wanting to maintain absolute power, there would be a risk to choosing a successor. Some may prefer to leave their region vulnerable rather than risk losing power. In such a case, imagine the political intrigue of a region's inhabitants calling upon a reluctant founder to name a successor.

[Dysmastan]

This is an excellent idea Consular. It has my support.

[Kylia Quilor]

Except that Founder succession is implicitly bound up in R/D, so people asserting that the Warzones are relevant for R/D as part of their version of or argument for Founder succession *is* relevant.


Damnit, I hate agreeing with you man, but I think Consular hasthe right of it on all of these.

EDIT: Also, let's not encourage the notion of 'Raiders' trying to infiltrate to become successors so they mess with the region. That's the sort of deliberate community destruction that this game does not need.

Way back when founders were first being manually assigned to regions by moderators that's exactly what would happen. Groups would pretend to be natives and then try to lay claim to the founder position. Players WILL attempt to infiltrate regions to become their successor in the event of a founder CTE. Why wouldn't they? Guaranteed win. That's the risk the first founder would be taking in naming someone their successor.

Just because it was done in the past doesn't mean we should do it now. It will happen, but active community destruction is exactly the sort of behavior we should all be opposed to.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Way back when founders were first being manually assigned to regions by moderators that's exactly what would happen. Groups would pretend to be natives and then try to lay claim to the founder position. Players WILL attempt to infiltrate regions to become their successor in the event of a founder CTE. Why wouldn't they? Guaranteed win. That's the risk the first founder would be taking in naming someone their successor.

Just because it was done in the past doesn't mean we should do it now. It will happen, but active community destruction is exactly the sort of behavior we should all be opposed to.

You can be opposed to it all you want, if the mechanics are created that allow for it to happen though, it will happen.