Founder Succession

[Almonaster Nuevo]

I've got three questions:

1. Could a successor choose a new potential successor?

2. Would it be publicly known who has been chosen as the founder's potential successor?

3. In the event that the successor has CTE'd before the founder, would the line of succession die with the founder?

As I understand the proposal...

1) Only once they have inherited.

2) Yes

3) The founder could appoint a new successor, but otherwise yes.

[Fauxia]

What if... hope this isn’t too complicated... if the founder doesn’t resign, and CTEs, the successor and Delegate both automatically get executive, and neither can remove the other?

[Trotterdam]

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.

Option Two: If a Founder CTEs, the Successor authority does nothing (though it is not removed). The region becomes Founderless. A Founder transfer must be proactively initiated by the Founder resigning.

Positives: The Founder cannot accidentally lose control of their region, they must actively cede it, which provides greater certainty and less potential for major dramas resulting from accidents. Active regions who clearly communicate are rewarded with the ability to transfer their Founder should they need or wish to.
Negatives: If something unexpectedly prevents the Founder from being active in NS, they may CTE and the region will be in danger. The Successor mechanic will be useless in these situations.
Contentious: The mechanic is primarily a quality of life change and does little really to enhance immediate regional security -- though it does enhance long term regional stability.

Option Three: If the Founder CTEs, the Successor does not automatically gain power, but gains a button that reads "Demand Power" or the like. (Since the Successor power cannot be removed by anyone but the founder, even if the Successor is ejected from the region, there is nothing a delegate could do to prevent this button from being used.)

Positives: A well-intentioned Successor wouldn't accidentally gain power from the Founder briefly CTEing, but there would still be a way for the Successor to gain power if it turns out to be necessary.
Negatives: A not-so-well-intentioned Successor can still pull a coup as easily as in Option One, and the period between the Founder CTEing and the Successor demanding power could still allow some raiders to get in and mess stuff up.
Contentious: Looking at it closely, this doesn't really have any clear advantage over Option One after all, since Option One also allows a cooperative Successor to rather easily transfer power back to the original Founder.

Option Four: Taking into account the above discussion that the "Founder" title should be reserved for the nation that actually founded the region while any eventual successors with the same powers should be called something else: the Founder could simply retain full executive powers whenever that Founder exists, even if a Successor has taken power. The Founder could thus take back full power at any time.
Option Four-A: There can still be only one Founder and one Sub-Founder (or whatever we call it). When the Founder is CTEd, the Sub-Founder can declare a Successor, but that Successor will then take over the Sub-Founder role and the previous Sub-Founder will lose all status.
Option Four-B: A full line of succession is maintained, so nations higher up the line of succession can always demand power back from those lower on the line of succession, if they come back. (This is basically the North Korea option, with an Eternal President, Eternal General Secretary, etc., with the highest-ranking leader that's current alive having absolute power.)

Positives: This allows infallible succession, even in the event of an unexpected CTE, while also being coup-proof. This gives maximum power to Founders, who are supposed to already be all-powerful.
Negatives: This would be much more complicated to code, especially Four-B. This may be a little too perfect, in the sense that there's little reason for Founders to be careful in who they entrust power to because they can always fix their mistakes later.
Contentious: For better or for worse, this allows Founders complete and absolute power over everything, including what happens when they're gone and what happens when they come back.

• This would decrease the necessity and prevalence of nation sharing -- the Founder account would not need to be passed on to another player because the Founder authority can be safely transferred to another nation entirely. Players could of course still share access to a Founder nation if they prefer to have multiple people control the account and this won't change those examples.
• Many players found regions with their personal main nation instead of a sort of thematic founder nation they can pass on, and so this gives them the opportunity to pass on the reins for the region while keeping their personal main nation by detaching it from the Founder position.

While these are valid reasons for players to not want to hand over ownership of there nations, I do note that when players are willing to hand over ownership of a founding nation, it offers behavior identical to Option Two (power can be transferred, but only by deliberate action). Since this is how founder succession (effectively) currently works, it provides a baseline for what should be expected from an official founder successor feature in order to actually be preferable to the unofficial method (both players and moderators will be happier if nation sharing/transfer is kept to a minimum).

• Should the Successor need to be present in the region it would inherit? If not, upon becoming Founder would it automatically move there, like if it had created the region?

It is currently entirely possible for normal Founders to not be in the region they rule over. They still retain full executive power over that region (except for the ability to set the Delegate to non-executive), and they can freely move back (and thereby claim the one power they didn't have from the outside), since they're effectively un-bannable.

As such, I don't see why a Successor being outside the region would be a problem.

[Frisbeeteria]

if the founder doesn’t resign, and CTEs, the successor and Delegate both automatically get executive, and neither can remove the other?

Too many hypotheticals for me here ... but if it were up to me, an Executive Founder with an appointed Successor would pass the Executive authority to his successor. The non-executive Delegate would never get Exec powers. If the founder doesn't want a successor to have Exec, don't appoint one.

[Fauxia]

if the founder doesn’t resign, and CTEs, the successor and Delegate both automatically get executive, and neither can remove the other?

Too many hypotheticals for me here ... but if it were up to me, an Executive Founder with an appointed Successor would pass the Executive authority to his successor. The non-executive Delegate would never get Exec powers. If the founder doesn't want a successor to have Exec, don't appoint one.

It basically eliminates r/d though

[Frisbeeteria]

It basically eliminates r/d though

Not remotely. Do you think that all 21,219 Founders sit anxiously by their keyboards twice a day for an hour at a time, defending their regions? If your only target is regions with Founders hovering on the cusp of CTE, then yeah - it might limit your choices. I think R/D is bigger than that.

[Fauxia]

It basically eliminates r/d though

Not remotely. Do you think that all 21,219 Founders sit anxiously by their keyboards twice a day for an hour at a time, defending their regions? If your only target is regions with Founders hovering on the cusp of CTE, then yeah - it might limit your choices. I think R/D is bigger than that.

Except that many regions don’t give the Delegate much authority, so tag raiding is handicapped drastically. No matter what, you’ll eliminate occupations this way. There are, of course, one nation regions that could be tagged, but that requires very good timing. You’ll need founders that are very inactive, administratively speaking

[Kylia Quilor]

I've got three questions:

1. Could a successor choose a new potential successor?

2. Would it be publicly known who has been chosen as the founder's potential successor?

3. In the event that the successor has CTE'd before the founder, would the line of succession die with the founder?

1. I'd imagine so, but perhaps there is a grace period
2. They'd be listed as a regional officer, going by Consular's OP.
3. I think the Founder could always pick a new successort.

I think option two is the best way to go about it, and I think either calling a retired original founder 'Founder Emeritus' or calling the successor founder 'Custodian' or 'Guardian' or something like that would be the two best options for allowing a region to formally acknowledge the original founder.

As it stands, I've got an arrangement involving a break glass way for my heir to get the password of the Founder of Kantrias should I suddenly CTE, but this would be a smoother and easier method.

As for one of your questions raised at the start, Consular, I'd imagine the Successor Nation would have to be in the region to recieve the succession.

[Consular]

I haven't quoted you all because many of your posts are related but I think I've responded to most points.

I could see this a valuable asset to the region part of the game. But for the Founder CTE factor; if possible, maybe add a time gap before authority transfers over upon CTE, like 24 hours. That way if the founder just wasn’t paying attention, or it’s an account created just for founding the region and someone forgot to log in, etc. Basically a dead man’s break.

That would result in an interim where the Delegate automatically becomes executive, which I would much prefer to avoid. I have deliberately removed such interims from my proposal for the reasons explored in the first post.

I also had ideas about this concept. Is there anything there that people might consider worth combining with this version?

I think your idea (the conditional period triggered by a Founder CTE) is an interesting compromise between option one and two, but I also think it adds complication. Whether the additional complication is worth it or not I am undecided.

I'd love to hear some thoughts from others on that.

To rephrase Bear's suggestion:

1. If the Founder CTEs, the Successor becomes a "conditional" Founder for 3 months. They enjoy all the powers as Founder.
2. After that 3 month period they become permanent Founder.
3. But if the original Founder revives within that 3 month period, they can reclaim their position. The conditional Founder reverts to Successor.

My opinion I think is that this is mechanically messy, and moreover removes the incentive for Founders to be active.

And honestly, I think it could be even more simple than this. Just give founders the ability to appoint ROs with executive authority. Allow those “Executive Officers” to prevent the Delegate from going exec if the Founder CTEs. Even if it is executive, WA Del can not remove executive officer, only the Founder can. Maybe add a second power (like “Successor”) that exempts Executive Officer from influence costs - but even this isn’t that important for keeping a region safe if the EO can turn off a Delegate and unbanning is free.

(It seems kind of weird to me that I can’t, and I actually have to appoint my regions elected officials myself after each election despite being otherwise uninvolved in the region. The ONLY other person I can let appoint ROs is whoever happens to be Delegate? I don’t feel as “absolute” as I’m made out to be in that system.)

I think that would make the implementation of regional officers quite messy, and would have all sorts of side effects on gameplay which I don't want to spend too much time worrying about right now. I think my proposal is actually more simple.

Of course you have to appoint your officials yourself -- having it any other way would allow you to completely abdicate all responsibility for managing your region, and I don't think that's an attitude I want to encourage.

By the by, I think it'd be constructive for people to develop this idea by inventing possible names for the position of a successor attaining founder powers, should it be desirable to permit the original founder to remain as a non-executive founder.

"Custodian" is the term we came up with in The Internationale to refer to the current "founder."

Is it desirable for the original Founder to remain as non-executive? I can think of a few reasons why not:

1. The Founder may be CTE, which is why the Successor took over. Do we really want a bunch of dead nations listed above all our regions?
2. The Founder may have left the region entirely, which is why they passed on the position. In which case it would be odd to have them engraved above the region permanently.
3. I consider the position not dissimilar to that of Delegate really. When the Delegate is changed they are simply replaced, and I don't think there is a strong reason why the Founder should not be the same.
4. The original Founder would still be recorded in the regional history somewhere, like the old Delegates.
5. A straight replacement is simpler, immediately understandable, and presents a cleaner UI.
6. What if the Founder role is transfered multiple times? Are they all listed or just the original?

If however we think the original Founder should remain, then I agree with Misley: The original Founder would remain listed as Founder, and the Successor would be listed as Custodian. That, or, as Fris suggests: The original Founder becomes Founder Emeritus, and the Successor becomes Founder. Ultimately though I'm not too fussed about what name we would go with.

if the founder doesn’t resign, and CTEs, the successor and Delegate both automatically get executive, and neither can remove the other?

Too many hypotheticals for me here ... but if it were up to me, an Executive Founder with an appointed Successor would pass the Executive authority to his successor. The non-executive Delegate would never get Exec powers. If the founder doesn't want a successor to have Exec, don't appoint one.

I agree with Fris.

What exactly is the purpose of that, anyway, Fauxia? Deliberately engineering a complicated governance situation for no benefit? The Successor could just ban all of the Delegates endorsers anyway to remove them from power.

Option Four: Taking into account the above discussion that the "Founder" title should be reserved for the nation that actually founded the region while any eventual successors with the same powers should be called something else: the Founder could simply retain full executive powers whenever that Founder exists, even if a Successor has taken power. The Founder could thus take back full power at any time.

1. This allows a region to essentially have two active Founders.
2. This completely removes any incentive for a Founder to remain active really.
3. The idea of transferring power hinges on that transfer being complete. I think it is important that it is a transfer and not merely sharing, and that the Founder cannot simply revoke that transfer. There must be consequences for decisions.
4. I think this could create a number of worryingly messy situations in gameplay.

• Should the Successor need to be present in the region it would inherit? If not, upon becoming Founder would it automatically move there, like if it had created the region?

It is currently entirely possible for normal Founders to not be in the region they rule over. They still retain full executive power over that region (except for the ability to set the Delegate to non-executive), and they can freely move back (and thereby claim the one power they didn't have from the outside), since they're effectively un-bannable.

As such, I don't see why a Successor being outside the region would be a problem.

I do think that, responding to my own question, if a Successor becomes Founder they should be automatically moved back to the region they become Founder of. That is consistent with the original Founder, and more importantly it ensures the Delegate does not accidentally become executive.

However this is abusable: A nation could appoint the Delegate of TNP as their Successor then transfer power or CTE, forcing the TNP Delegate out of TNP. At the moment you can appoint anyone to an officer position, they do not have to accept, and the TNP Del may not notice the notifications (they likely get a lot of them) and may not resign in time.

So either the Successor should have to be in the region, or the Successor should NOT automatically move to the region on becoming Founder. I think I lean towards the latter on the balance.

Not remotely. Do you think that all 21,219 Founders sit anxiously by their keyboards twice a day for an hour at a time, defending their regions? If your only target is regions with Founders hovering on the cusp of CTE, then yeah - it might limit your choices. I think R/D is bigger than that.

Except that many regions don’t give the Delegate much authority, so tag raiding is handicapped drastically. No matter what, you’ll eliminate occupations this way. There are, of course, one nation regions that could be tagged, but that requires very good timing. You’ll need founders that are very inactive, administratively speaking

This doesn't eliminate occupations at all. It is not retroactive and the existing founderless regions remain as they are. New large founderless regions stopped being a thing years ago. I discussed all this in the original post.

[Wordy]

There is also the fact that invaders do attack regions with founders. Having a founder does help to ensure the region is not burned however it is not a guarantee get out of raids free card.

[Trotterdam]

1. The Founder may be CTE, which is why the Successor took over. Do we really want a bunch of dead nations listed above all our regions?

George Washington is dead, people still make a big deal about him.

There is also the fact that invaders do attack regions with founders. Having a founder does help to ensure the region is not burned however it is not a guarantee get out of raids free card.

A founder in the region plus a non-executive delegacy (which is something the founder can set) is pretty much a get-out-of-raids-free card. The worst raiders could do in such a situation is break a "longest-serving delegate" streak. Even if the founder is barely active, until the founder officially CTEs the delegate (native or raider) is powerless.

Some foundered regions to choose to make their delegacy executive (or do so by accident because they didn't realize the consequences), and that makes those regions somewhat vulnerable to raiding, but that's their own choice.

[Consular]

1. The Founder may be CTE, which is why the Successor took over. Do we really want a bunch of dead nations listed above all our regions?

George Washington is dead, people still make a big deal about him.

True but irrelevant. The question is do we want to do that? I think it would be cleaner without but that's just my opinion.

[Trotterdam]

True but irrelevant. The question is do we want to do that? I think it would be cleaner without but that's just my opinion.

All newly-created regions have a listed founder, even if that founder chose to be non-executive. That makes it pretty clear that the game intends the word "founder" in the sense of "person who founded the region", and not "person who has powers". That many founders have powers, and ones which non-founders cannot currently have, is an accident of the current state of the game, but is not relevant to the definition of "founder".

A CTEd founder would be no less relevant to the region than a non-executive one, as far as game mechanics are concerned. The decision has already been made that non-executive founders are still worth retaining mention of.

Meanwhile, a successor is objectively not the founder since it is not the person who founded the region, and so should not be referred to by that name.

[Consular]

Alright. And what if the founder wanted to no longer have anything to do with that region, and that's why they ceded their position?

[Trotterdam]

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.

Thinking about it some more, a founder that's worried about an accidental succession can avoid that by simply not officially naming a successor until such a time that the founder is actually about to step down. This would effectively duplicate the behavior of Option Two.

You're never required to have a successor.

Thus, under Option One, a founder would have the choice of having greater security against raiders but worse security against coups (by naming a successor immediately, even if it isn't expected to become necessary anytime soon) or greater security against coups but worse security against raiders (by naming the successor only immediately before the founder intentionally gives up power), whereas Option Two would force regions to do the latter and make the former impossible.

Giving founders more choice on what they consider the greater threat seems to be the better option, even if there is the risk that some founders will accidentally choose something they didn't want because they didn't think things through.

3. The idea of transferring power hinges on that transfer being complete. I think it is important that it is a transfer and not merely sharing, and that the Founder cannot simply revoke that transfer. There must be consequences for decisions.

That said, I'm not sure sharing power is actually a problem. There's already been a move toward greater power sharing, in the addition of regional officers. Currently there are some powers that can't be shared with regional officers, but is there a solid reason they shouldn't be? You yourself criticized previous suggestions for trying to retain some sense of danger, saying you weren't looking for a "compromise".

Alright. And what if the founder wanted to no longer have anything to do with that region, and that's why they ceded their position?

No longer wanting to have anything to do with the region is already something that can happen, and it is one possible reason for a founder to choose to become non-executive. The founder remains listed.

If you want there to exist a way for founders to become permanently delisted from the region, I don't see that that would be a problem, but it also doesn't seem like a particularly important feature. If that does happen, then the region would cease to have anyone listed under the title of Founder, and the region header would show only the Delegate and the whatever-title-successors-get, which should still not be "Founder".

[Flanderlion]

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. Illuminati was a decent sized founderless region. TCB, Westphalia, Africa etc. are all regions that the founder died reasonably recently (not sure about TCB date if it is recent anymore, I noticed when they died though), and likely would have avoided becoming founderless if the founder could appoint a successor.

Secondly, from an IC perspective, the founder founded the region, making a new nation 'founder' might give them powers but they aren't really the founder of the region. If R/D is irrelevant etc. and somehow this idea makes it to live game, can they be called something completely different from a founder, because they didn't found the region.

I think the idea causes more issues than it solves. At least the admins previous version of this idea provided an incentive for regions to become founderless, while this seems like the idea is to prevent regions from going founderless when the original founder loses interests/faces mod action etc. Less worthy targets means people go for quantity of targets rather than quality targets.

[Aclion]

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

I disagree. There will still be quit a lot of regions that are founderless, either because they do not have a founder or because the founder neglects to select a successor. Additionally, the presence of a founder doesn't preclude R/D activity. Sure you won't be able to pile in and occupy a foundered region, but that's the case already. Tag raiding, which comprises the bulk of R/D nowadays is still viable so long as there are executive Delegates around. This also opens up a whole new, more political side to R/D, of infiltrating regions and getting selected as the successor to the founder.

[Consular]

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. Illuminati was a decent sized founderless region. TCB, Westphalia, Africa etc. are all regions that the founder died reasonably recently (not sure about TCB date if it is recent anymore, I noticed when they died though), and likely would have avoided becoming founderless if the founder could appoint a successor.

Secondly, from an IC perspective, the founder founded the region, making a new nation 'founder' might give them powers but they aren't really the founder of the region. If R/D is irrelevant etc. and somehow this idea makes it to live game, can they be called something completely different from a founder, because they didn't found the region.

I think the idea causes more issues than it solves. At least the admins previous version of this idea provided an incentive for regions to become founderless, while this seems like the idea is to prevent regions from going founderless when the original founder loses interests/faces mod action etc. Less worthy targets means people go for quantity of targets rather than quality targets.

I don't think the entire game revolves around the needs of R/D.

I don't think it's entirely fair that most players be denied a massive quality of life improvement just to prevent change for a small subset of users.

I don't think it's entirely fair that gameplayers tell other players they can just get a founder to opt out, but then argue more people having founders is bad for R/D.

And I don't think this change would actually affect R/D that much at all anyway.

Besides, that is what, four examples? Not a particularly impressive number if I'm honest, and they aren't even all regular R/D battlegrounds either. It is not a given that under this change they would have not become founderless, you're making an assumption for evidence. If Option Two were in play (transfer must be actively initiated, no transfer on CTE) I think most if not all of those regions would still be founderless.

Let me ask you a couple questions, then, so non gameplayers can better understand:
1. What issues exactly do you think this change would cause?
2. Why, exactly, is less founderless regions "obviously quite detrimental for R/D"? I do not think there would be substantially less founderless regions as a result of this change, but just humour me.
3. Why should we provide an incentive for regions to become founderless? I think the we should reward players who take steps to prevent becoming founderless.
4. Do you think the priority of this game should be to create "quality" targets for invaders?

[Caelapes]

A possible wrench to throw in here that could make things interesting: make mod DEATs invalidate a successor chosen by the DEATed founder, leaving the region founderless.

[Aclion]

A possible wrench to throw in here that could make things interesting: make mod DEATs invalidate a successor chosen by the DEATed founder, leaving the region founderless.

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

[Caelapes]

A possible wrench to throw in here that could make things interesting: make mod DEATs invalidate a successor chosen by the DEATed founder, leaving the region founderless.

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

Except regions that become founderless by moderator action are already currently vulnerable.

This would provide regions’ founders with further incentive to stay inbounds. If they can fuck up and just pass control along to a handpicked successor, there is no disincentive.

[Aclion]

It would also create an incentive for people who want to occupy a certain regions to harass the region's founders, and it would compromise the integrity of moderation by making them part of the R/D game.

[Bears Armed]

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...

this seems like the idea is to prevent regions from going founderless when the original founder loses interests/faces mod action etc.

With "etc" including the possibility that they become absent from NS due to a serious accident of some kind, of course, as well as the 'avoidable' causes that you actually identify.

[Frisbeeteria]

A possible wrench to throw in here that could make things interesting: make mod DEATs invalidate a successor chosen by the DEATed founder, leaving the region founderless.

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.

[Trotterdam]

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.