Term Limits: GCR Delegates

[USS Monitor]

UCRs are meant to belong to the people who built them. GCRs belong to NS as a whole. The difference is a feature, not a bug. There is nothing stopping anybody in the GCRs from getting off their butts and building a UCR if they decide that UCR mechanics are more to their liking.

So you are of the opinion that those of us who have spent years building up GCR communities shouldn't, that our contributions to the game aren't worth squat, and that we have absolutely no right to any kind of security for the communities we've worked years at building?

GCRs do not "belong to NS as a whole." They belong to the communities that reside in them. They aren't playthings for the rest of you. I personally didn't put years into Osiris for somebody from a user-created region to come along and blow it up for their petty amusement, because they're bored. They're usually so bored because their user-created regions lack anything of interest or value, so they look to messing up GCRs for their entertainment.

You can put in as much or as little time as you want, but you don't own the region.

[Cormactopia Prime]

So you are of the opinion that those of us who have spent years building up GCR communities shouldn't, that our contributions to the game aren't worth squat, and that we have absolutely no right to any kind of security for the communities we've worked years at building?

GCRs do not "belong to NS as a whole." They belong to the communities that reside in them. They aren't playthings for the rest of you. I personally didn't put years into Osiris for somebody from a user-created region to come along and blow it up for their petty amusement, because they're bored. They're usually so bored because their user-created regions lack anything of interest or value, so they look to messing up GCRs for their entertainment.

You can put in as much or as little time as you want, but you don't own the region.

Which is equally true of founderless user-created regions. Only Founders own regions. The difference you're trying to suggest doesn't actually exist.

[Unibot III]

GCRs do not "belong to NS as a whole." They belong to the communities that reside in them. They aren't playthings for the rest of you. I personally didn't put years into Osiris for somebody from a user-created region to come along and blow it up for their petty amusement, because they're bored. They're usually so bored because their user-created regions lack anything of interest or value, so they look to messing up GCRs for their entertainment.

I'm not advocating "blowing up" GCRs. In my opinion, the most destructive, corrosive (and yet appealing) force that a GCR faces is inertia.

Sometimes these long term incumbents have been so popular and so steady-minded that residents have a difficult time imagining the region without their leadership, sometimes these long term incumbents have been widely and bitterly despised for their weak will and absence of vision. But it doesn't matter which is the case: in either scenario, the region has hollowed out underneath them and nobody has the capability to remove them without their departure being consensual.

[USS Monitor]

You can put in as much or as little time as you want, but you don't own the region.

Which is equally true of founderless user-created regions. Only Founders own regions. The difference you're trying to suggest doesn't actually exist.

Founderless UCRs still have an owner, even if the owner isn't around, and they have grown by the work of their inhabitants, not by the game feeding them new members. GCRs are in debt to the site as a whole for feeding them members that they don't have to go out and recruit.

[Mount Seymour]

GCRs do not "belong to NS as a whole." They belong to the communities that reside in them. They aren't playthings for the rest of you. I personally didn't put years into Osiris for somebody from a user-created region to come along and blow it up for their petty amusement, because they're bored. They're usually so bored because their user-created regions lack anything of interest or value, so they look to messing up GCRs for their entertainment.

I'm not advocating "blowing up" GCRs. In my opinion, the most destructive, corrosive (and yet appealing) force that a GCR faces is inertia.

Sometimes these long term incumbents have been so popular and so steady-minded that residents have a difficult time imagining the region without their leadership, sometimes these long term incumbents have been widely and bitterly despised for their weak will and absence of vision. But it doesn't matter which is the case: in either scenario, the region has hollowed out underneath them and nobody has the capability to remove them without their departure being consensual.

This is one scenario that you've come up with. It's possible this could happen. But what if there is a GCR delegate who is extremely active for a long time? You can't solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Which is equally true of founderless user-created regions. Only Founders own regions. The difference you're trying to suggest doesn't actually exist.

Founderless UCRs still have an owner, even if the owner isn't around, and they have grown by the work of their inhabitants, not by the game feeding them new members. GCRs are in debt to the site as a whole for feeding them members that they don't have to go out and recruit.

GCRs, especially sinkers where almost all new nations are inactive, don't just receive growth to their community by getting fed new members. You ever tried getting people to sign up to a forum? It's harder than you think. Building a stable community out of the chaos of a GCR is an immense feat, and to say that it's all set up for you is completely ignorant.

[Unibot III]

But what if there is a GCR delegate who is extremely active for a long time?

It doesn't happen. It just doesn't. Plain and simple. And even if it did happen, there's more to activity than just showing up. You need change.

[Onderkelkia]

But what if there is a GCR delegate who is extremely active for a long time?

It doesn't happen. It just doesn't. Plain and simple. And even if it did happen, there's more to activity than just showing up. You need change.

On the contrary, Balder has a delegate who has been highly active and engaged with the region for an extended period.

And there is more to "change" in a region than the delegacy (in just the same way that UCRs can evolve and rejuvenate without a change of founder). There is also good change and bad change. A game-imposed mandatory change of delegate against the will of regional inhabitants is an example of bad change.

[Unibot III]

It doesn't happen. It just doesn't. Plain and simple. And even if it did happen, there's more to activity than just showing up. You need change.

On the contrary, Balder has a delegate who has been highly active and engaged with the region for an extended period.

And there is more to "change" in a region than the delegacy (in just the same way that UCRs can evolve and rejuvenate without a change of founder). There is also good change and bad change. A game-imposed mandatory change of delegate against the will of regional inhabitants is an example of bad change.

The continuation of any long term delegacy is an expression of one person's will to continue, not the will of any inhabitants. The game mechanics don't allow for that kind of revolution. You can't really dethrone a deep-sated delegacy in this contemporary environment.

If someone wants to continue as a delegate for years on end, their presence whether it's one that's adaptable or ceremonial, always ends up having a chilling effect ultimately on ambition and vision. A founder is not a delegate. However much you try to make it one. It's still the executive.

Honestly, if this idea doesn't happened - and I have no idea if it is going anywhere. I'd just like to say, I sincerely think it's good advice to any Game-Created Region to see to it there's a regular turnover. You know, it's always the same story. The person is "indispensable." They admin the forums. They're synonymous with the region. They're genuinely -liked- and respected. Years and years pass. And yet when they finally do retire, they retire from the region with it, a hallowed out ghost of itself but everybody assures each other that without their effort the region "would have been in even worse shape." And then a year later, the region is more active than ever with a fresh cycle of delegates, a better sense of purpose and vision, and never looks back again. Sure, they won't have a bad word to say for the person who lead them for five, six, seven, eight years or whatever, but they all know the truth that it wasn't in the interests of the community or the region - even if it seemed like the only available option at the time.

Frankly, I just want to stop that cycle: two years and y'rrrrre out! The alternative is stagnation, one that the game mechanics unfortunately encourage leaders to indulge.

[Onderkelkia]

A founder is not a delegate. However much you try to make it one. It's still the executive.

In case there is any doubt, I am the chief executive of Balder and the delegate has no role in the region's executive policy-making.

A GCR that has succeeded in entrenching its delegate as a founder figure, to maximise long-term security, should be allowed to reap its rewards. Such security can be a bedrock of a vibrant democracy, depending on the players involved. By forum post count and Discord activity, Balder is the most active of the four sinker regions based on the stability that Solorni provides. Some regions are less successful than others. It depends on the players involved.

Honestly, if this idea doesn't happened - and I have no idea if it is going anywhere. I'd just like to say, I sincerely think it's good advice to any Game-Created Region to see to it there's a regular turnover. You know, it's always the same story. The person is "indispensable." They admin the forums. They're synonymous with the region. They're genuinely -liked- and respected. Years and years pass. And yet when they finally do retire, they retire from the region with it, a hallowed out ghost of itself but everybody assures each other that without their effort the region "would have been in even worse shape." And then a year later, the region is more active than ever with a fresh cycle of delegates, a better sense of purpose and vision, and never looks back again. Sure, they won't have a bad word to say for the person who lead them for five, six, seven, eight years or whatever, but they all know the truth that it wasn't in the interests of the community or the region - even if it seemed like the only available option at the time.

Frankly, I just want to stop that cycle: two years and y'rrrrre out! The alternative is stagnation, one that the game mechanics unfortunately encourage leaders to indulge.

This cycle is one possible scenario. It is not the only possible scenario. That may or may not have been the experience of The Rejected Realms with Kandarin in your assessment. It most definitely has not, however, been Balder's experience with Solorni.

The future of each region depends on the players and circumstances involved. This rule change would effectively prevent a player from continuing to play.

[Klaus Devestatorie]

So how long would y'all propose the cool down period be after you hit the term length limit?

[Jar Wattinree]

GCRs, especially sinkers where almost all new nations are inactive, don't just receive growth to their community by getting fed new members. You ever tried getting people to sign up to a forum? It's harder than you think. Building a stable community out of the chaos of a GCR is an immense feat, and to say that it's all set up for you is completely ignorant.

And much of the GCR population are probably puppets of other people. The number of WA in a region endorsing the Delegate is a good sign of how many are there, and are active, generally speaking. And amen to the difficulty of getting them to sign up.

[Unibot III]

A founder is not a delegate. However much you try to make it one. It's still the executive.

In case there is any doubt, I am the chief executive of Balder and the delegate has no role in the region's executive policy-making.

A GCR that has succeeded in entrenching its delegate as a founder figure, to maximise long-term security, should be allowed to reap its rewards.

The executive power lies with the delegate, Onderkelkia. That's the person with the ban button.

Rachel could ban you from Balder, onsite and offsite, in about three minutes. And there's nothing that anyone could do about it. You're not her boss.

Balder is the most active of the four sinker regions based on the stability that Solorni provides

Delusional nonsense.

So how long would y'all propose the cool down period be after you hit the term length limit?

That's a million dollar question. One year seems like the simple answer and would probably be serviceable. I mean, you could also do it like a battery, where the longer you were out of the delegacy, the more your potential tenure "recharged." So each day you were out of the delegacy, the longer you could serve if you returned - up to the original cap, of course. That's a bit more complicated but ultimately more flexible too.

[Onderkelkia]

In case there is any doubt, I am the chief executive of Balder and the delegate has no role in the region's executive policy-making.

A GCR that has succeeded in entrenching its delegate as a founder figure, to maximise long-term security, should be allowed to reap its rewards.

The executive power lies with the delegate, Onderkelkia. That's the person with the ban button.

Rachel could ban you from Balder, onsite and offsite, in about three minutes. And there's nothing that anyone could do about it. You're not her boss.

Your original statement was:"If someone wants to continue as a delegate for years on end, their presence whether it's one that's adaptable or ceremonial, always ends up having a chilling effect ultimately on ambition and vision. A founder is not a delegate. However much you try to make it one. It's still the executive."

If you are using "the executive" to mean the person with Executive authority in the region (as opposed to "executive" in the governmental sense), then that applies as much as to any founder as a delegate. Your supposed distinction between founders and entrenched GCR delegates has no merit. It says nothing about which person is responsible for providing leadership and direction to the region, particularly in the era where regional officers can be appointed.

HEM could ban Rach in Europeia from the region and forums in just the same way. Is HEM Europeia's chief executive rather than Rach as elected president?

Balder is the most active of the four sinker regions based on the stability that Solorni provides

Delusional nonsense.

No, it is hard fact, as anyone who cares to inspect the relevant post counts and is familiar with the regional Discord servers will know.

For instance, Balder's 125,598 forum posts since October 2011 puts it ahead of The Rejected Realms's 93,662 forum posts since October 2004. By the time Balder was created, Kandarin (and the Kandarin nation with Naivetry) was out of the Delegacy of TRR, so that doesn't account for the difference.

[Galiantus III]

I think a lot of the disagreement about whether it is okay to change GCR mechanics and not UCR mechanics is stemming from some in-character versus out-of-character misunderstanding. In-character, the delegates of the GCRs are the current owners. But out-of-character, Admin are the owners, because they're the ones who actually create GCRs. Founders of UCRs are the owners of their regions both in-character and out-of-character. What I'm saying is, at the top of every GCR page, there might as well be a line that says "Founder: NS Admin". As UCRs live and die by the will of their founders, so do GCRs live and die by the will of the NS Admin; as the founder of a UCR defines the rules of their region to suit their vision, the NS Admin may define the rules of the GCRs to suit their vision.

Thus the question we need to ask is: What vision do the NS admin have for GCRs?

Here we have Unibot suggesting that vision should involve the possibility for change, for conflict, for competition, and he has effectively showed that the current state of affairs does not suit that vision. We also have others suggesting that the vision ought to focus on stability, and that the vision has already been realized.

The assumption here is that the Admin must be satisfied with the status quo because, as it appears, they are not trying to change it. However, the NS Admin are people, dealing with a complex system that interacts with thousands of people. They are not the only inputs to the system - we, also, are inputs to their system. We are complex and hard to predict. And we, coming from the game world, have our own visions to try and persuade them with. Factor in that the Admin team isn't very big, they don't have all the time in the world to devote here, and they can't predict whether a new feature will bring their vision to fruition, or what kind of back-lash they will receive for it, and you can see how unlikely it is that NS as it currently stands is fulfilling their vision in every way they would like.

I think USS Monitor has made it clear that the Admin will do whatever they damn well please with GCRs (and I'll assume even UCRs) if they believe the outcome will result in a better game from their perspective as the referee. He also made a suggestion of his own, which I rather like:

Something like requiring endorsements to be renewed periodically, so that it is more work to secure long-term delegacies, I could see a case for.

I'd like to know what Admin think of this discussion. They make the ultimate call which direction things can go in, so this could be a waste of all our time if they don't want to see any change. On the other hand, if they feel GCRs need to be revitalized somehow, then it works for us to generate and refine ideas with their goal in mind. If this is, indeed, what they want, then perhaps we should move to a more general thread for the purpose of generating and comparing ideas. I personally would like to see some discussion on the endorsement-renewal idea USS Monitor made.

Edit: Well isn't that convenient. Apparently I started a thread for the general discussion of ideas related to GCR mechanics almost a year ago. Here it is.

[Onderkelkia]

As I see it, the first dispute to be had here is not over whether changes should be made to GCRs for the benefit of the game as a whole, without any regard for the needs of GCR communities. In my discussion above with Unibot, the distinction between UCR founders and entrenched GCR delegates did not arise in that context. Rather, it arose from his suggestion that GCRs are unable to revitalise without a change of delegate. UCRs revitalise all the time without a change of founder and there is no practical reason why GCRs cannot undergo the same process. Under the present set-up, GCRs are perfectly capable of evolving even without a change in the delegacy. GCRs are also perfectly capable of having leaders other than the in-game delegate and appointing these individuals as regional officers. There is genuinely no reason why those leaders cannot be every bit as effective as good delegates in driving performance. So, contrary to Unibot's point, there can be leadership change in GCRs without a change of the delegacy and the only difference is method of appointment. That practical point is a fundamentally different argument from whether disruptive changes to GCR mechanics are acceptable from a moral point of view.

The main issue is that the entire problem that Unibot notionally aims to address arises from only one possible scenario for the future of GCRs under entrenched delegates, based on Kandarin's leadership in The Rejected Realms, which he believes was stagnant. (Of course, in reality, it is an invented problem to pursue Unibot's persistent fantasy about a coup in Balder; it would be utterly shameful if a change in game mechanics was implemented based on a proposal made to satisfy one player's burning desire for vengeance against other players). Stagnation may have been his experience of Kandarin's leadership. By contrast, it has not been Balder's experience of Solorni's leadership. As in other aspects of the game, outcomes depend on player behaviour. The proposed change needlessly excludes a player from the game for being too successful in entrenching their position. The existing system allows players to reap the rewards of their actions. There is no necessary detriment to the activity of the GCRs from the existing system; outcomes are all contingent on player behaviour. That leads to some good examples and some bad examples. A variety of outcomes is natural and will occur under any system.

[Frisbeeteria]

Thus the question we need to ask is: What vision do the NS admin have for GCRs?

I can answer that one, actually. That vision is "hand it over to the players and get the hell out of the way." [violet] doesn't give the slightest damn about GCR politics, except when it spills over into the forums and provokes a giggle. We did the same thing with GenSec. Once it became practical to hand GA management over to the players, mods and admins mostly got out of the way.

The only time [violet] becomes activist in any way is when there are credible complaints about game balance. Mods vs. Raiders was unbalanced, so we got influence. Refoundings vs. Lazarus was unbalanced, so we got two new sinkers. She doesn't typically try to repair social problems with technical solutions. Tech is for fixing tech, which is why we see rapid changes to things like API requests; and very, very slow changes to things like GCRs and the raiding game.

this could be a waste of all our time if they don't want to see any change.

You're confusing inertia with intent. Admin doesn't really care unless there's an obvious imbalance. Reading this thread, it appears the "change/don't change" votes are about evenly divided. Thus, probably no real need for a change.

[Galiantus III]

That all makes sense. Thanks for the explanation, Fris.

[Unibot III]

Reading this thread, it appears the "change/don't change" votes are about evenly divided. Thus, probably no real need for a change.

Well, I think that's being charitable, this idea hasn't gone over well at all.

But I do want to say something with regards to your post before this thread goes the way of the dodo bird. I know that Gameplay can seem to be a sectarian, babbling circus - it seems that way, because it usually is. But just because we don't always agree on problems or solutions, doesn't mean there aren't definite problems present sometimes with definite answers. And not to embarrass him by singling him out, but in Mallorea, the mod team has someone (like Sedge) they can rely upon to be a straight-shooter who can cut through the partisanship for you, and has a fundamentally good grasp of what makes gameplay tick.

I've suggested a lot of things over the past few months...

Venters
New SC Categories
WA Ambassadors

.. and there's a theme to all these proposals. I hope to see the game advance forward and shake up the old 'blocs.' My main observation and I've heard others share it, is the "R/D" game is working basically fine - military gameplay is functioning basically as we'd like, it's certainly functioning better than when I was an active updater. It's the politics where Gameplay has changed and not necessarily for the better. I think we're seeing a lot of players retreat. We're at an en passe where everyone is being reactive and no one has the interest in being proactive.

Administration, moderation and Gameplay have a complicated history. The truth is the old adage that administrations and moderation "rise" above Gameplay and don't intervene in it is... well, it's poppycock. Gameplay for years has been driven by the latest additions to the game, in addition to ad hoc moderator and administrative rulings. You can't talk about Francos Spain without talking about Neutered Sputniks. You can't talk about the Lazarus Coup without talking about the Moratorium on Telegram Campaigns. You can't talk about Puppetmaster without CHK codes. Etc. etc. etc. I could go on. But the point is, we're not as autonomous as the GenSec. More to the point, I'm not sure we can be. There's been bad decisions - decisions that I don't think have helped Gameplay function, but there's also been good decisions - new contributions to the game that shake us up and force our groups to react - and Gameplay seems to have always thrived on the good.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Reading this thread, it appears the "change/don't change" votes are about evenly divided. Thus, probably no real need for a change.

Well, I think that's being charitable, this idea hasn't gone over well at all.

It's early days, the thread hasn't even been open for 48 hours yet. It may be totally unworkable or not, but maybe something interesting spins out of this line of thought even if the original concept isn't sound. The concept "don't let one person hold one of the feeders/sinkers for eternity" comes from a sympathetic place. Whether it is actually applicable to NS or not is a debate already in progress here, and whether there are technical issues with it is a different but pertinent question.

And not to embarrass him by singling him out, but in Mallorea, the mod team has someone (like Sedge) they can rely upon to be a straight-shooter who can cut through the partisanship for you, and has a fundamentally good grasp of what make gameplay tick.

I'm nothing if not a straight-shooter. There are a bunch of neat tech ideas I see floating around, and some of them have been around for awhile. If I can find the time this week I'll stir the pot on some of them and see where they go.

Anyways back to this idea.

[Davelands]

I will admit that I only skimmed the responses so if I repeat anything I'll accept the snark.

Personally I see no need for this. In The West Pacific, Badger and I moved out most of the older ex-Delegates and ROs with minimal disruption. If you look at my cabinet, other than Medio and Neenee (who have been around for years), the rest of the ROs are in the 2-5 year old nation age group. In terms of RO service, everyone (again except for Medio, Neenee, and Badger) has less than 2 years of service in the region. That's a pretty young staff for a GCR. And frankly a good balance between old and new.

And it came about as a result of a little backbone and effort.
There is no reason or need to hard code it into the game.

If a region is running smoothly and is active with an older leadership group, why change for the sake of change? All that breeds is instability.
If a region has stagnated because of an older leadership group, in time some people will come along to change that.

[Unibot III]

On the other hand, Davelands, I’m not sure TWP has ever crossed over this 2 year rule. Whereas other GCRs have and have always suffered in the long term despite the security and stability it’s provided and the enduring popularity of the delegates.

I should add that I disagree with Onder; this thread was not just influenced by my experience in TRR, but really a full breadth of GCRs: TRR, TEP, TP, Lazarus, TSP etc.

I do wonder, however, if the admins were to implement this proposal in a staggered fashion, where current delegates were “grandfathered” - discussion wouldn’t be focused on defending the current popularity and performance of individual (extant) delegates but rather the value of regular turnover.

[Tim Stark]

So you are of the opinion that those of us who have spent years building up GCR communities shouldn't, that our contributions to the game aren't worth squat, and that we have absolutely no right to any kind of security for the communities we've worked years at building?

GCRs do not "belong to NS as a whole." They belong to the communities that reside in them. They aren't playthings for the rest of you. I personally didn't put years into Osiris for somebody from a user-created region to come along and blow it up for their petty amusement, because they're bored. They're usually so bored because their user-created regions lack anything of interest or value, so they look to messing up GCRs for their entertainment.

You can put in as much or as little time as you want, but you don't own the region.

This is a really concerning stance to see NS Moderators taking regarding GCRs. Our communities that we've built there are just as legitimate as anywhere else, and GCRs should have the right to keep themselves secure how they wish.

As for this proposal, it seems inevitably centered around Unibot's desire to attempt to force more democracy into situations where it isn't necessary. The GCRs that have chosen authoritarian systems of Delegate rule are free to do so, and those who dislike it are free to attempt achieving reform there, whether it be through diplomacy or force. I see little to no need for this proposal, and I definitely fail to see anything it will do besides cause occasional hassles for everyone. Look, there's regimes in the GCRs that I'm not fond of. However, if I want to do something about them, I'll do it through Gameplay means rather than attempting to force reform through an unnecessary Technical change.

[Marilyn Manson Freaks]

I don't care for this idea, if someone wishes to stay in power a long time, they should be able to! I mean, I love democracy as much as the next guy, but this is a little excessive.

[Unibot III]

As for this proposal, it seems inevitably centered around Unibot's desire to attempt to force more democracy into situations where it isn't necessary. The GCRs that have chosen authoritarian systems of Delegate rule are free to do so, and those who dislike it are free to attempt achieving reform there, whether it be through diplomacy or force. I see little to no need for this proposal, and I definitely fail to see anything it will do besides cause occasional hassles for everyone. Look, there's regimes in the GCRs that I'm not fond of. However, if I want to do something about them, I'll do it through Gameplay means rather than attempting to force reform through an unnecessary Technical change.

I do not at all believe that this proposal affects Authoritarian regions disproportionally, nor is that the intent. When you look at examples of regions that haven’t had a delegate stay in power for over two years versus those that have, you will see examples of both democratic and authoritarian regions. The reasons for players staying in the delegate seat are very diverse and specific to each context - some are popular democrats, some are benevolent dictators - the issue is that it’s never healthy for the region involved. The communities emerge from their long reigns basically in tatters, administratively and culturally. And it’s the game that suffers as a result.

Take for instance, the grand-daddy of the authoritarian GCRs, the Pacific. Among its nine Emperors, only two stayed as delegate longer than two years consecutively. These two individuals’ reigns, however, account for about 70% of the New Pacific Order’s history - and yet little of the NPO’s accomplishments are attributed to these delegacies. This is yet another case where less is more. I would argue forced turnovers would help all GCRs - including dictatorships - flourish. This proposal is not an anti-autocrat proposal, it is an anti-stagnation proposal.

[Frisbeeteria]

you don't own the region.

This is a really concerning stance to see NS Moderators taking regarding GCRs. Our communities that we've built there are just as legitimate as anywhere else, and GCRs should have the right to keep themselves secure how they wish.

I don't know what you read there, but it's a simple statement of fact. Founders own UCRs. There are founderless regions and regions where the founder is long gone, but they are still user-created.

GCRs are created by and for the game. Sure, you can build your community however you like, but GCRs have special powers conveyed on them by the game engine. Players don't have a choice about being spawned or revived in a feeder or sinker, and anyone who builds a community in the defined uncertainty of a Warzone can necessarily expect delegate disruption. Until [violet] makes a change to the game code and lets UCRs function as feeders and sinkers, GCRs will continue to be a special case, with occasional special rules.