Regional Custodians: Return of the idea

[The Stalker]

With all this talk of new features and things for the WA/SC, I wanted to bring up the old R/D summit idea Custodians.

Now before I get the "it would destroy R/D" crowd, I mean to propose a more balanced and challenging form of it.

For those not familiar the old idea was as follows;

"This Security Council proposal type could be targeted at a nation and a region at the same time, and would appoint the nation as Custodian of the region, giving it access to regional controls. The custodian would have to spend influence in order to use regional controls."

Old thread link

My suggestion on this would be to increase the requirements that only a nation who has been delegate for at least 2 years continuously can be a target and that it would require a super majority of 60% to pass. Also keeping in mind such a resolution would also be open to be repealed and it requires the custodian to use influence to do things.

I honestly be fine adding to the requirements if people think it should be even harder than this to accomplish.

This would create a goal for founderless to strive for the 2 year mark and for raiders to prevent the 2 year mark. I feel this would be high enough standards that only a few founderless regions could do.

I also feel that in cases like my region, Hell, both my region and NS would be better off. Hell can be so much more than it is once we are freed from our wall, we've had success, but I know we could be more.

Also for those "wHy DoN't YoU jUsT rEfOuNd"

Hell no, no one wants to refound and loose 18+ years of regional history or risk it being taken by someone else. We've paid our dues and there should be a better path.

I now open the floor to an in pour of unwaivering support of this idea.

[Kylia Quilor]

I'd be willing to support this idea in principle, on the terms you raise.

Custodianship, like any SC resolution, should be repealable, of course. I also think if you CTE, your custodianship should be lost, even if you refound and come back.

Obviously you have your own region in mind here, and it would (rather annoyingly) significantly secure several of the few remaining large founderless non GCRs as well, giving them custodianship possibilities.

But it still, long-term, could be a reasonable idea, in theory. Though Hell's use of the underworld seems to have served them well.

[Galiantus III]

Opposed. I don't like the idea of imposing a game-over scenario based on a popularity contest. And that is exactly what it would be in any region where one native has sufficient influence.

[Phyr]

I think the example of Hell shows why this needs tweaked, you said raiders are incentivized to stop you from hitting the two year mark, but you had a password. That’s not balanced, IMO. I think more balanced is once the custodian resolution passes, no passwords are allowed and the delegate gets custodian powers if they hold the region for X days. That feels balanced, especially if an invader holding the region X days gets them the coalition power.

Your way just sounds like any significant region can get a custodian with time due to passwords.

[Heidgaudr]

Custodianship, like any SC resolution, should be repealable, of course. I also think if you CTE, your custodianship should be lost, even if you refound and come back.

I don't see why. Influence decays while CTE'd, so seems like the system already fixes that without adding additional stipulations.

My suggestion on this would be to increase the requirements that only a nation who has been delegate for at least 2 years continuously can be a target and that it would require a super majority of 60% to pass. Also keeping in mind such a resolution would also be open to be repealed and it requires the custodian to use influence to do things.

I feel like this is overcomplicating the matter. The SC would already be having to pass it, so there doesn't really need to be additional filters as to who can be nominated for custodianship. We don't have any requirements for liberations so I don't see why custodians would need any special treatment.

All in all, I'm fairly supportive of a Custodian resolution.

[The Stalker]

I think the example of Hell shows why this needs tweaked, you said raiders are incentivized to stop you from hitting the two year mark, but you had a password. That’s not balanced, IMO. I think more balanced is once the custodian resolution passes, no passwords are allowed and the delegate gets custodian powers if they hold the region for X days. That feels balanced, especially if an invader holding the region X days gets them the coalition power.

Your way just sounds like any significant region can get a custodian with time due to passwords.

You think surviving two years behind a password is easy? It's not. Most founderless regions die behind a password unless they get creative. I think with the standards I set very few founderless regions would even be able to pull this off. I can't even think of 5 healthy founderless regions who would be able to do this...

Plus with a require 60% in support it be hard to pass because many think regions should stay founderless forever. Raiders have influence over the WA, I don't think we can pretend passing any custodian resolution would be easy to do.

I am open to ideas for tweaking it, but I don't think making a different way for raiders to steal the region is really balanced. It's like refound risk it being stolen, assign custodian also risk it being stolen?

I feel like this is overcomplicating the matter. The SC would already be having to pass it, so there doesn't really need to be additional filters as to who can be nominated for custodianship. We don't have any requirements for liberations so I don't see why custodians would need any special treatment.

All in all, I'm fairly supportive of a Custodian resolution.

I agree lol, but making it harder is only what I can see it being a possibility.

[Comfed]

I think the Custodian resolution should be able to give anyone control, resident or not, and only require a 50% threshold. However, said individual should only have control for a short period, like 90 days. The OP’s proposal limits use to “free refound without the usual effort”.

[Phyr]

You think surviving two years behind a password is easy? It's not. Most founderless regions die behind a password unless they get creative. I think with the standards I set very few founderless regions would even be able to pull this off. I can't even think of 5 healthy founderless regions who would be able to do this...

Plus with a require 60% in support it be hard to pass because many think regions should stay founderless forever. Raiders have influence over the WA, I don't think we can pretend passing any custodian resolution would be easy to do.

I am open to ideas for tweaking it, but I don't think making a different way for raiders to steal the region is really balanced. It's like refound risk it being stolen, assign custodian also risk it being stolen?

The way you did it was harder, but what your proposing would have made it 10 times easier. You would found Underworld with a puppet, recruit for that region and tell people in two years you can move back to Hell. Meanwhile yes, it would be easy and risk free to sit with your WA endorsed by long time permanent resident Big Jim P and you could be a 1 endo delegate for as long as you needed. You are asking for a risk free way to make a region not raidable, which means all significant targets will take that option. It is up to admin but I think this would be a mistake.

A 60% threshold is nothing. Just like Libs these would be very popular with the non-gameplay voters and would pass with larger majorities than that easily IMO.

[Main]

I think the Custodian resolution should be able to give anyone control, resident or not, and only require a 50% threshold. However, said individual should only have control for a short period, like 90 days. The OP’s proposal limits use to “free refound without the usual effort”.

Wouldn't that create a situation where the SC is presented with reoccurring renewal legislation every 90 days? Could end up with (to use the op's region as an example) having "Regional Custodian of Hell VIII" be submitted 90 days after "Regional Custodian of Hell VII" was passed. Reoccurring legislation could clog the queue.

[The Stalker]

You think surviving two years behind a password is easy? It's not. Most founderless regions die behind a password unless they get creative. I think with the standards I set very few founderless regions would even be able to pull this off. I can't even think of 5 healthy founderless regions who would be able to do this...

Plus with a require 60% in support it be hard to pass because many think regions should stay founderless forever. Raiders have influence over the WA, I don't think we can pretend passing any custodian resolution would be easy to do.

I am open to ideas for tweaking it, but I don't think making a different way for raiders to steal the region is really balanced. It's like refound risk it being stolen, assign custodian also risk it being stolen?

The way you did it was harder, but what your proposing would have made it 10 times easier. You would found Underworld with a puppet, recruit for that region and tell people in two years you can move back to Hell. Meanwhile yes, it would be easy and risk free to sit with your WA endorsed by long time permanent resident Big Jim P and you could be a 1 endo delegate for as long as you needed. You are asking for a risk free way to make a region not raidable, which means all significant targets will take that option. It is up to admin but I think this would be a mistake.

A 60% threshold is nothing. Just like Libs these would be very popular with the non-gameplay voters and would pass with larger majorities than that easily IMO.

We could require the region must have 5(or more) residents with large amount of influence to qualify to remove small regions like that, but I really doubt people would vote for custodianship for a small dead region, I just don't see that happening.

We could up the time as delegate to 3 years, or 5 years, why not 10 years, something really crazy long time.

We could require the region must be founderless for at least 10+ years first, and it must be commended too! Make any amount of requirements, I don't care, some path should exist for regions to have a form of a founder. At a certain point it become crazy that regions have to be founderless for decades.

[Lord Dominator]

How do you figure GCRs into this, considering they are entirely capable of running up a 2 year delegacy if they wanted (with the NPO, Balder, and probably Lazarus doing so under normal operation)?

Greatly increasing the influence cost for custodians might be a decent way to simplify the whole thing - anyone can be one, bu only certain nations can actually use it frequently (and even then, they better either be old farts or the current delegate/RO in regular times).

[The Stalker]

I think it goes without saying GCRs wouldn't qualify, I don't think they were ever considered for this back when it was originally proposed.

[Lord Dominator]

I think it goes without saying GCRs wouldn't qualify, I don't think they were ever considered for this back when it was originally proposed.

Obviously it doesn’t, seeing as I’m asking

[The Stalker]

Greatly increasing the influence cost for custodians might be a decent way to simplify the whole thing - anyone can be one, bu only certain nations can actually use it frequently (and even then, they better either be old farts or the current delegate/RO in regular times).

I like that idea, best suggestion so far, increasing influence costs could be a good way to go. Would allow raiders to still wage war against a founderless region with a custodian if they wanted, particular if a weak custodian.

[Flanderlion]

This very much sounds like an end game - which I'm against. I get why it helps your region, but I don't get why it helps the game.

[Zheng Yi Sao]

As Singapore has been existing, much as Hell, behind closed doors for a number of years due to constant raids, we would like to add our support to this proposal.

[Cormactopia Prime]

This sounds a lot like a proposal to exclusively benefit Hell to me. By the OP's own admission, few regions would be able to pull this off, so why would it merit a whole SC category? Resolutions would be extremely few and far between, especially if we take the OP's advice and impose as many restrictions as we want as long as Hell still qualifies. I don't think we need an SC proposal category that is tailored to a single founderless UCR.

[The Stalker]

This sounds a lot like a proposal to exclusively benefit Hell to me. By the OP's own admission, few regions would be able to pull this off, so why would it merit a whole SC category? Resolutions would be extremely few and far between, especially if we take the OP's advice and impose as many restrictions as we want as long as Hell still qualifies. I don't think we need an SC proposal category that is tailored to a single founderless UCR.

I very much have my own region in mind, but I more than welcome suggestion to make it balanced to be fair to R/D and other regions. Even including a requirement Hell hasn't achieve yet we'd need to strive for.

[The Stalker]

This very much sounds like an end game - which I'm against. I get why it helps your region, but I don't get why it helps the game.

I think it is less of an end game than people make it out to be as it could be repealed and the custodian could cease to exist.

In my opinion being founderless stunts a region, Hell could be so much more cultural and gameplay productive/involved if we didn't have to focus so much on our defense.

Saying the only benefit Hell is to NS is being a target to be attacked is nonsense. By that logic it be be better if ever major region lost there founder and become a target for raids since that is the best service a region can be to NS, a target.

[Flanderlion]

This very much sounds like an end game - which I'm against. I get why it helps your region, but I don't get why it helps the game.

I think it is less of an end game than people make it out to be as it could be repealed and the custodian could cease to exist.

In my opinion being founderless stunts a region, Hell could be so much more cultural and gameplay productive/involved if we didn't have to focus so much on our defense.

Saying the only benefit Hell is to NS is being a target to be attacked is nonsense. By that logic it be be better if ever major region lost there founder and become a target for raids since that is the best service a region can be to NS, a target.

See, that's my non ironic view - every major region should be able to be hit unless it's a small region shutting themselves off from the world, like a class region or a small group of RL friends. Hence why I've suggested features that makes regions voluntarily make themselves vulnerable etc.

All this said, this feature being implemented/not implemented isn't a hill I care to die on, so despite personally being against the feature, you're nice enough from our interactions, and you guys obviously feel quite passionately about it, so I'll wish you guys best of luck and leave this thread for more constructive comments.

[Kylia Quilor]

Custodianship, like any SC resolution, should be repealable, of course. I also think if you CTE, your custodianship should be lost, even if you refound and come back.

I don't see why. Influence decays while CTE'd, so seems like the system already fixes that without adding additional stipulations.

Because otherwise custodianship is just a founder with influence costs. Regions should have to actually maintain their custodian nation. Plus, it helps prevent the permeant game over problem of custodianship.

Plus with a require 60% in support it be hard to pass because many think regions should stay founderless forever. Raiders have influence over the WA, I don't think we can pretend passing any custodian resolution would be easy to do.

Given the SC's track record in commending defenders just for being defenders, and passing almost every non-offensive liberation Defenders toss at them, I'd disagree that custodianship would be hard to pass.

This very much sounds like an end game - which I'm against. I get why it helps your region, but I don't get why it helps the game.

Well, the notion would be that it helps non-Gameplayers who don't want to be raided every other week, and the like. Gives regions a theoretical chance to take back control of themselves, while creating openings for preventing it. As long as it's structured appropriately, It could work without being an end-game across the board.

[The Free Joy State]

Especially if the Autocracy/Democracy proposal comes in, I do think that long-standing regions should be able to appoint a Custodian/replacement founder to protect them. It would enable regions that do not wish to participate in R/D to focus on the parts of the game they enjoy.

However, I would tweak the idea. Rather than the idea go through the SC, I think the region should be able to appoint their own custodian. I agree that only delegates should be able to be chosen (and, perhaps, very long-standing region members who have previously served as delegate and who are known and plan on sticking around). I imagine there would still be an influence cost, but it would be a simpler process.

I also question why the barrier has to be two years (especially if Autocracy/Democracy comes in).

(Can you guess what thread I came over from?)

[Galiantus III]

Yeah, with the way Democracy/Autocracy is going, I feel much better about giving the standard UCR more security options. And I wouldn't want to bog down the SC with this; just like TFJS said, the process could be kept local to the region, which would help further solidify which regions are all about gameplay and which are not.

[Comfed]

I think very few UCRs will opt for democracy. The risk of getting raided will be calculated to be greater than that of getting spawns. I have heard that the only region probably confirmed to be doing this is the Communist Bloc and it is already founderless anyway.