Founder Succession

[Kuriko]

So, I've been mulling this over for the last couple of weeks. For the longest time, NationStates has had only two options for executive powers within a region. Those two ways, we all know, are founders and WA Delegates after a founder has ceased to exist. I'm not going to lie, reading Comfed's thread made me want to post this finally since they brought up something similar.

The way NS is set up is so that a founder is permanently executive, whereas the WA Delegate can either be given executive powers by the founder while they're still around or after they've CTEd. For my idea all the code needed already exists within the game I believe, but it may need tinkering in order to enact it if moderation deems it a good idea. So without further ado, I'll get into it I guess.

Founder Succession

My idea is that a founder can appoint a successor nation, which can be listed underneath the founder above the WFE. The premise of this is basically what happens within the game already when a founder CTEs, where executive power is automatically transferred to the WA Delegate. With an appointed successor nation, the nation would remain non-executive until a founder nation ceases to exist.

When the founder nation ceases to exist the executive powers of the region, instead of being automatically transferred to the WA Delegate, would automatically be transferred to the successor nation instead. This successor nation would retain executive power until the founder nation returns, at which point they become non-executive and executive powers return solely to the founder. This successor nation would also be immune to outside interference, unlike the WA Delegate, and so would make the region safe from the R/D game.

In my opinion, all of the same costs to do things as an executive delegate should also apply to the successor nation. Influence cost for ejections, 26 hours for BC appointment, and whatever else I'm missing. Feel free to nitpick this into oblivion, I'm writing it in a really tired state of mind so it might not make sense.

Edit: I also forgot to mention this, which Som mentioned below me. If a successor CTEs, the WA Delegate would automatically become executive again. If either the successor revives, or the founder revives, executive powers would automatically return to whichever one revived and be taken away from the delegate again.

[Aumeltopia]

The main issue I see with this is there's no way to get out of it a second time: it's not recursive. If the successor CTEs eventually too (it might be, say, five years after the original founder CTEd), then you're still left with a founderless region and an executive WA Delegate. Unless you have a particularly perceptive founder, there's little guarantee that the successor will actually stick around longer than the founder.

It still might be useful if the founder is generally active but knows they might not be able to get online to keep their nation alive for a period of time, though.

I'm sure someone has proposed it before, but ideally you could have recursive founder succession. The founder can always appoint a successor, who becomes the new founder -- with all its associated powers -- as soon as the old founder CTEs. If the old founder returns, they don't automatically become founder again. The successor remains founder, but could of course re-appoint the old founder as their own successor. Or they could appoint someone else as their own successor, in which case if they CTEd the foundership would move on to that second successor and so on. A region could still become founderless if no successor were appointed.

[SherpDaWerp]

The main issue I see with this is there's no way to get out of it a second time: it's not recursive. If the successor CTEs eventually too (it might be, say, five years after the original founder CTEd), then you're still left with a founderless region and an executive WA Delegate. Unless you have a particularly perceptive founder, there's little guarantee that the successor will actually stick around longer than the founder.

It still might be useful if the founder is generally active but knows they might not be able to get online to keep their nation alive for a period of time, though.

I'm sure someone has proposed it before, but ideally you could have recursive founder succession. The founder can always appoint a successor, who becomes the new founder -- with all its associated powers -- as soon as the old founder CTEs. If the old founder returns, they don't automatically become founder again. The successor remains founder, but could of course re-appoint the old founder as their own successor. Or they could appoint someone else as their own successor, in which case if they CTEd the foundership would move on to that second successor and so on. A region could still become founderless if no successor were appointed.

I'm strongly on board with this suggestion. The Glass Gallows founder nation (Maniacal) has changed hands 4 times now in an effort to retain regional security - it would be much easier if we could appoint successors instead of passing a nation around.

There is one downside, in that regions who have a pre-existing setup (Hell, for instance), or regions whose founder nations are already dead (any region with a CTE founder) won't be recognised as "pioneers" or gain any benefit at all from this system - it effectively gives an infinite security tool to any region with a currently active founder, and sucks to suck for everyone else.

That said, what's lost in the politics of "how to remain secure" is gained in the politics of "who gets to succeed the founder", so it would balance out.

[Aumeltopia]

That said, what's lost in the politics of "how to remain secure" is gained in the politics of "who gets to succeed the founder", so it would balance out.

Yes -- the flip side, of course, is that in a founderless region with an executive delegate, even if a raider manages to seize the delegacy, there's a workable method for removing them. If a raider manages to be appointed successor, there is no way to get them out. The region is effectively destroyed permanently. This is a weak point of both Kuriko's proposal and the recursive successorship I mentioned.

I'm not sure if the tradeoff of letting some otherwise founderless regions remain secure (if they choose successors wisely) in exchange for a few founderless regions being permanently destroyed is worth it. But either way it's not a clear-cut issue.

[Jakker]

This has been suggested before. Feel free to check out these previous threads as well (there also might be others):
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=428882&hilit
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=315102&hilit
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=276112&hilit

[Queen Yuno]

I liked your idea at first, but it's something a founder can already do-- by giving away his founder nation to someone else.

[Bormiar]

I feel like this would lessen R/D targets and erode at the subculture.

I would prefer if the founder had to press a button to give the region to a successor. That way they can prepare if they want to leave the game, but if they just CTE / get deleted executive goes to the delegate. Plus regions like Thalassia wouldn't have to nation share.

[Kuriko]

This has been suggested before. Feel free to check out these previous threads as well (there also might be others):
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=428882&hilit
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=315102&hilit
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=276112&hilit

Out of all three I think the first one is closest to my idea, except that in my idea there wouldn't be founder transfer. My idea would act the same way the game does now, just transferring executive authority to an unassailable position first instead of the delegate. Thanks for the links Jakker

I liked your idea at first, but it's something a founder can already do-- by giving away his founder nation to someone else.

Something that you know is highly discouraged by moderation and could be dangerous. Many would prefer not to do this. Not to mention the inherent risk of DEAT for offenses that aren't yours, warnings passed on, etc etc.

I feel like this would lessen R/D targets and erode at the subculture.

Not really, imho. All regions that are currently founderless won't be able to do this, and pretty much only the attentive foundered regions would enact it. R/D would still be viable, this wouldn't affect non-executive foundered regions, and if a successor CTEs executive power would transfer to the delegate until the successor or founder returns.

[Sedgistan]

Some form of founder succession is desirable - to prevent messy/risky nation transfers/sharing, and to retain regional histories. However, the big drawback is it would massively reduce the "pool" of eligible regions for raiding.

I know for a lot of people that is not considered a drawback, however for the vitality of the R/D game - which is something we want to retain - it is. You therefore need to come up with a trade-off, or an incentive not to have a successor, to ensure that there are sufficient "raidable" regions still in existence.

That brings me back to an old idea that has been around for 4+ years (and which I continue to favour) that also addressed several other GP problems. In short regions can choose to be "Autocracies" (like current regions with the benefit of Successors) or "Democracies" (non-executive Founder, and eligible for nations to spawn there). [There was an idea for a mid-point "Oligarchies" but I don't consider that beneficial any more.]

It gives regions Successors for a more permanent opt-out from R/D, shrinks the oversized feeders, and gives a strong incentive for "raidable" regions to exist. The SC can also have a new tool to prevent nations being spawned in "undesirable" regions.

[Tatarica]

That brings me back to an old idea that has been around for 4+ years (and which I continue to favour) that also addressed several other GP problems. In short regions can choose to be "Autocracies" (like current regions with the benefit of Successors) or "Democracies" (non-executive Founder, and eligible for nations to spawn there). [There was an idea for a mid-point "Oligarchies" but I don't consider that beneficial any more.]

It gives regions Successors for a more permanent opt-out from R/D, shrinks the oversized feeders, and gives a strong incentive for "raidable" regions to exist. The SC can also have a new tool to prevent nations being spawned in "undesirable" regions.

There should also be a short questionnaire at the end of your nation's creation page where you select from whatever region tags you are interested in for your new nation and then it ends up in a random region that has those region tags (eligible for new nations to spawn in).

[Madjack]

I feel like this would lessen R/D targets and erode at the subculture.

Sounds like an additional reason to do it then.

[Flanderlion]

Some form of founder succession is desirable - to prevent messy/risky nation transfers/sharing, and to retain regional histories. However, the big drawback is it would massively reduce the "pool" of eligible regions for raiding.

I know for a lot of people that is not considered a drawback, however for the vitality of the R/D game - which is something we want to retain - it is. You therefore need to come up with a trade-off, or an incentive not to have a successor, to ensure that there are sufficient "raidable" regions still in existence.

That brings me back to an old idea that has been around for 4+ years (and which I continue to favour) that also addressed several other GP problems. In short regions can choose to be "Autocracies" (like current regions with the benefit of Successors) or "Democracies" (non-executive Founder, and eligible for nations to spawn there). [There was an idea for a mid-point "Oligarchies" but I don't consider that beneficial any more.]

It gives regions Successors for a more permanent opt-out from R/D, shrinks the oversized feeders, and gives a strong incentive for "raidable" regions to exist. The SC can also have a new tool to prevent nations being spawned in "undesirable" regions.

Has been a while since it was first posted here.

Still think Autocracies deserve extra recruitment penalties - the trade-off should always be between recruitment and security. Could even be implemented by itself with appropriate recruitment penalties (e.g. significantly higher stamp cost per TG and losing API recruitment/far higher manual recruitment timers), as the aim of it is to let the Joe nation and his couple of classmates live in their region without being hit, while not encouraging GP regions to do the same. SC could even remove the status.

Overall still believe that bigger regions are best for new players, but if admin wished to break up the Feeders (which aren't particularly large atm) it's a decent option.

[Mingulay Isle]

Some form of founder succession is desirable - to prevent messy/risky nation transfers/sharing, and to retain regional histories. However, the big drawback is it would massively reduce the "pool" of eligible regions for raiding.

I don't think this is as true as conventional wisdom holds. Not from looking at XKI's defense history. Very few regions which could accept the risk of transferring the founder could become targets. They're old AF regions that predate founders, hold on purely because of their name, or regions that never really developed the sort of community where passing on the founder would preserve the region more then be a new avenue for attack. The only regions that would benefit from this are established regions with active community, and those tend to either pass on the founder or get refounded anyway; and are the least compelling arguments for R/D being good for the game anyway.
This of course assumes we go with somy's suggestion, since the risk is somewhat reduced if the old founder can come.

[Honeydewistania]

Will this apply for DEATed founders?

[Tatarica]

Having one "vice-founder" until (if) the actual founder comes back is an interesting suggestion, definitely better than nothing, does not impede that much the R&D aspect of the game and, again, if you want recursive founder succession, then just re-found the region - like we have it currently.

[A Bloodred Moon]

Not really, imho. All regions that are currently founderless won't be able to do this, and pretty much only the attentive foundered regions would enact it. R/D would still be viable, this wouldn't affect non-executive foundered regions, and if a successor CTEs executive power would transfer to the delegate until the successor or founder returns.

I’m going to respond to this point by point, as I think that it’s a load of shit, frankly.

Bold - There aren’t all that many currently founderless regions of any significant size, and you need new ones to keep R/D alive - continuing to raid the same regions over, and over, and over again wouldn’t be fun for anyone - not raiders, not defenders and most certainly not natives.

Italic - meaning any region of significant size, and even some of insignificant size. Sure, tagging targets will be around, but what if you don’t want to engage in pointless, repetitive tagging? I am also reasonably sure that the first thing you and other moralists would do is telegram every founder of a region of decent size to appoint a successor, should this proposal be implemented.

Underlined - meaning that not only do you wish to take the chances of a founder CTEing away and reducing our viable targets, you’re also trying to double the chance of a founder returning?

This proposal would only further encourage tagging over occupations or holds. While for some that’s acceptable, there’s plenty of us who wouldn’t like to see military gameplay reduced to mindless tagging and the occasional occupation of the same region raided a hundred times before. I’m quite sure it’s intended to do so, too: the only difference between a founder and a delegate is that the founder can stop invasions. Sure, things are slightly easier to do as founder than as delegate, such as appointing BC ROs, passwording or banning/ejecting, but on the whole, a region could survive perfectly fine with a delegate but no founder, outside of invasions. This proposal is actively meant to stop large raids from happening - another blow to a part of the game that only recently picked up again. In fact, the only benefit this proposal offers is to make invasions less likely, depriving raiders of good targets, as the successor would have the same powers and setbacks as the World Assembly Delegate. No other benefit is offered or proposed, and it’s a thinly veiled attempt to take a step to doing what XKI has been trying to do since 2003: ending raiding.

This is not 2003, either: regions aren’t being destroyed or refounded left and right - the last raid and refound is over a year ago - and even if it would happen natives and defenders have plenty of tools to prevent such things - liberations, passwords, the backing of a number of large regions. You don’t need another layer of protection, which is the only thing this proposal offers.

[Mingulay Isle]

I am also reasonably sure that the first thing you and other moralists would do is telegram every founder of a region of decent size to appoint a successor, should this proposal be implemented.

Actually no. Given how dangerous it would be to appoint a successor that does not have your absolute trust I would discourage it except in the most well established communities, basically as an alternative to sharing a founder nation. This only covers Somyrion's suggestion, since Kuriko's allows the founder to regain control. But your arguments don't apply under Kuriko's system anyway. Her successor only add one more person who needs to CTE before the delegate gets executive power and the region is viable for nontag raids.

[Kuriko]

Bold - There aren’t all that many currently founderless regions of any significant size, and you need new ones to keep R/D alive - continuing to raid the same regions over, and over, and over again wouldn’t be fun for anyone - not raiders, not defenders and most certainly not natives.

Let's look at the most recent occupation raids, shall we? Boston, Iran, South Pacific, Middle Earth, all regions that have been raided a hundred times and aren't new to being raided at all. Iran has officially been taken off that list due to being refounded, but the rest remain viable. Raiders don't hit new regions with occupational raids often enough for your argument to make sense, so you may want to try again.

Will this apply for DEATed founders?

Those regions would have a possible successor, yes, but there wouldn't be the safeguard of a founder returning under my system. So if the successor is also deleted, its game over. That's the one drawback under my idea, it would save fascist/nazi regions too (eeewww).

Having one "vice-founder" until (if) the actual founder comes back is an interesting suggestion, definitely better than nothing, does not impede that much the R&D aspect of the game and, again, if you want recursive founder succession, then just re-found the region - like we have it currently.

At least someone here gets my point

[A Bloodred Moon]

Bold - There aren’t all that many currently founderless regions of any significant size, and you need new ones to keep R/D alive - continuing to raid the same regions over, and over, and over again wouldn’t be fun for anyone - not raiders, not defenders and most certainly not natives.

Let's look at the most recent occupation raids, shall we? Boston, Iran, South Pacific, Middle Earth, all regions that have been raided a hundred times and aren't new to being raided at all. Iran has officially been taken off that list due to being refounded, but the rest remain viable. Raiders don't hit new regions with occupational raids often enough for your argument to make sense, so you may want to try again.

Unfortunately, ASEAN Region, Liberty Nations Alliance, SECFanatics, The Commonwealth of Crowns, Pengoons, The United Meritocrats, Xedas and others all disagree with you. All occupation raids, all reasonably recent, none that were raided a hundred times before. You don’t get to pick and choose which ones fit your narrative and which ones don’t.

[Kuriko]

Let's look at the most recent occupation raids, shall we? Boston, Iran, South Pacific, Middle Earth, all regions that have been raided a hundred times and aren't new to being raided at all. Iran has officially been taken off that list due to being refounded, but the rest remain viable. Raiders don't hit new regions with occupational raids often enough for your argument to make sense, so you may want to try again.

Unfortunately, ASEAN Region, Liberty Nations Alliance, SECFanatics, The Commonwealth of Crowns, Pengoons, The United Meritocrats, Xedas and others all disagree with you. All occupation raids, all reasonably recent, none that were raided a hundred times before. You don’t get to pick and choose which ones fit your narrative and which ones don’t.

It would still only be a small dent in R/D, it wouldn't end it and saying that it would is a fallacy. There'd still be new founderless regions, there'd still be tag targets.

[HumanSanity]

Let's look at the most recent occupation raids, shall we? Boston, Iran, South Pacific, Middle Earth, all regions that have been raided a hundred times and aren't new to being raided at all. Iran has officially been taken off that list due to being refounded, but the rest remain viable. Raiders don't hit new regions with occupational raids often enough for your argument to make sense, so you may want to try again.

Unfortunately, ASEAN Region, Liberty Nations Alliance, SECFanatics, The Commonwealth of Crowns, Pengoons, The United Meritocrats, Xedas and others all disagree with you. All occupation raids, all reasonably recent, none that were raided a hundred times before. You don’t get to pick and choose which ones fit your narrative and which ones don’t.

The only regions that get protected under either variation of the proposal (Kuri's original proposal or Somy's amendment) are those that have a strong enough community (as in multiple active members) to where the founder felt it was i) important to name a successor, ii) felt there was someone they could trust as a successor, and iii) understood the relative merits of naming a successor. In this way, the proposal will protect relatively active and complete communities, while giving you plenty of less active regions to raid.

The variations of this proposal sit at a sweet spot between the critique that "well, now there aren't enough targets" and "no one will use this". Some would, some wouldn't. As a result, there would be fewer targets, and more actual communities with structure and planning will be safe, but there's going to be plenty of things for you to occupation raid.

[Morover]

Perhaps make it something that requires influence to do?

[The Stalker]

Lots of interesting ideas floating in this thread.

I do like ideas that fix the founderless issue, though I think being able to appoint an heir does make R/D harder and also doesn't help those of us already founderless.

Personally I think I would favor something that creates a path back to having a founder. Not a simple gift of being able to assign one, but more a feat to accomplish. Like if someone is able to maintain delegateship for so long, like 3 years in a row or something difficult, they may become founder. Some Labours of Hercules to earn it.

Or maybe there is a timetable where after being founderless for like 5 years, a region may apply to get one of it's resident set as founder. This would allow regions to be founderless for a time, but not forced to be so forever.

And then there is always that old Custodian idea that we were once promised. I would be happy to see a version of it that allow a nation to be assigned Custodian of a founderless region if they were able to get the resolution passed by the WA. This would require political clout to maintain, as I think the current attitude of the WA be less inclined to give this option to many regions.

That brings me back to an old idea that has been around for 4+ years (and which I continue to favour) that also addressed several other GP problems.

I also do like the idea of other regions being able to spawn nations. Turning some of the classic old founderless regions into mini feeders could be a fun idea. This game definitely needs more feeders to balance things.

As much pride I take in the system we have created in Hell, I do one day hope to have the means to open Hell's gates, be it by the fortune of being able to become it's founder or otherwise.

[Bormiar]

Perhaps make it something that requires influence to do?

Best idea here.

[Kuriko]

Perhaps make it something that requires influence to do?

Best idea here.

Going along that track, you could have it set so that the successor nation loses a certain amount of influence each week after being appointed.