Suggestion: SC Function to Make Founders Non-Executive

[La Navasse]

I was thinking about the functions of the Security Council lately, spreading interregional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary, and I feel that there could be another function to spread such peace and goodwill via force: designating a regional founder non-executive.

With world approval, similar to a Liberation, a region's Founder could be made non-executive, where essentially WA members sanction the temporary establishment of SC control. Similar to UN Peacekeeping Forces, I propose the name of such a function should be "Enforcement", as in "Enforce [Region]".

As in Non-Executive Founder regions, Executive control would go to the WA Delegate.

Thoughts?

[Lenlyvit]

This has been shot down so many times and will be again.

Edit: Mods have repeatedly stated that an executive founder is the only thing allowing regions to opt out of R/D gameplay, and aren't likely to change that.

[Tinhampton]

What if one attempts to Enforce a founderless/pre-founder region, or a region that already has a non-exec founder?

[Galiantus III]

I am opposed to this idea. The founder is the owners of their region. Admin have said this will always be the case. This is not a discussion worth having.

[La Navasse]

This has been shot down so many times and will be again.

Edit: Mods have repeatedly stated that an executive founder is the only thing allowing regions to opt out of R/D gameplay, and aren't likely to change that.

I see. I'll still see how much attention this suggestion garners, but otherwise, I won't be pushing for it.

What if one attempts to Enforce a founderless/pre-founder region, or a region that already has a non-exec founder?

Those regions would be unenforceable.

[Fauxia]

Yeah, I know everyone would like to make Nazi Europa and KAISERREICH non-executive, but this could be abused in too many ways. It is too much power to the nazis, and it really isn’t fair to founders. Everyone, even the nazis, have a right to fair game mechanics

[Unibot III]

The people for whom this proposal category would be routinely used against have already decided not to opt-out of R/D. Macedon? Region Hawkers? KAISERREICH?

I think it's okay that a proposal category can be 'exploited' and used for 'bad'. A SC category should be a bit of a double-edged sword. WA Liberations were controversial when they were implemented and I expect this will be too - and that's okay. A bit of controversy is good for stirring difficult discussions regarding the ethics of the Security Council.

WA Democratisation. "Democratise ________ ."
A resolution to authorize executive powers to non-executive delegates.

[Galiantus III]

Except there is actually nothing keeping the feeders from all deciding they want to start dismantling regions they don't like. This could be abused in extremely harmful ways. I understand the idea, but if we are going to discuss this I would rather not leave it up to the SC. A much better system would be to have founders gradually shift from being full executive to non-executive over time. That is both a more organic and fairer solution, since the issue of regional security would not be so dependent upon the acceptance of the majority of the WA, but of the individual regions to maneuver themselves politically. Just taking this issue and putting it to a vote just robs us all of the real political game we could play if all regions were destined to become vulnerable in a known amount of time.

[Lenlyvit]

Except there is actually nothing keeping the feeders from all deciding they want to start dismantling regions they don't like. This could be abused in extremely harmful ways. I understand the idea, but if we are going to discuss this I would rather not leave it up to the SC. A much better system would be to have founders gradually shift from being full executive to non-executive over time. That is both a more organic and fairer solution, since the issue of regional security would not be so dependent upon the acceptance of the majority of the WA, but of the individual regions to maneuver themselves politically. Just taking this issue and putting it to a vote just robs us all of the real political game we could play if all regions were destined to become vulnerable in a known amount of time.

Um, no no no no. There's a reason techies got rid of non-executive founder regions/regions with no founders. I mean, non-exec founders are still a thing but still. Please no.

[Flanderlion]

Thing is, most regions trying to opt out of R/D won't be at risk, because the SC won't pass something screwing over some innocent (no grey area) natives. This gives a way to stop certain GP regions hiding behind founders (not exclusively meaning the NS right here) from being safe from the consequences of them messing with a protectorate/GCR etc. I'm for this. Johnny and his two man region won't be hurt from this change (unless those 3 somehow manage to spam enough RMBs without getting DEATed to cause them to become an international menace).

[Galiantus III]

Except there is actually nothing keeping the feeders from all deciding they want to start dismantling regions they don't like. This could be abused in extremely harmful ways. I understand the idea, but if we are going to discuss this I would rather not leave it up to the SC. A much better system would be to have founders gradually shift from being full executive to non-executive over time. That is both a more organic and fairer solution, since the issue of regional security would not be so dependent upon the acceptance of the majority of the WA, but of the individual regions to maneuver themselves politically. Just taking this issue and putting it to a vote just robs us all of the real political game we could play if all regions were destined to become vulnerable in a known amount of time.

Um, no no no no. There's a reason techies got rid of non-executive founder regions/regions with no founders. I mean, non-exec founders are still a thing but still. Please no.

Oh I agree with you. I'm just saying that would be better than leaving it up to the SC. If a change affects everyone the same way, you still have a game. If you make a change that players get to choose who it affects by majority rule - that's not a game anymore. Perhaps what I should have said is "less reprehensible". That is more accurate.