Frontiers, Governors, Successors and Injunctions

[Great Algerstonia]

So then why should it be the responsibility of the community? A community who doesn't have a job to enforce OOC behaviors throughout NationStates?

The moderators are rules cops

Then enforce the rules, rather than deferring them to the community. The Moderation Team is making a wholly OOC SC category for the purposes of stopping OOC nonsense. I never said anything about content, I said regions with bad OOC behavior. Doxxing, harassment. I ask again, why can't the Moderation Team deal with that instead of deferring it to the community by making a category designed explicitly to moderate?

If you think Embargo shouldn't be one of those tools, make your case on that rather than counting on the moderators to shoulder literally EVERY load.

Very well.

For starters-- Embargo is not efficient at the task what it seeks to solve compared to other options. What Embargo is, is a SC Category that automatically prevents Embargoed regions from getting new nations spawned in, should they be a Frontier. There are a number of flaws with this line- for starters, this is largely inferior to the Invading mechanic. What Invading does is bans all residents, appoints an Invader as the Delegate, passwords the region, and eventually refounds the region. This is, objectively, far more effective than an Embargo ever will be, when it comes to dealing with OOC transgressions. Embargoes is not effective at removing regional history, ensuring nobody can enter the region, or straight up refounding the region. What is the point of Embargo, when there is another feature that does the job Embargo seeks to do far better?

Embargo can quickly move out of hand. The Moderation Team has explicitly said in this thread that this is designed for OOC moderation. However, there is no safeguard or other form of deterrent to ensure it stays that way. What stops players from Embargoing regions that majority of players disagree with In-Character. What stops players from turning Embargo into a popularity contest, only for regions that are popular within the Gameplay sphere? This is entirely possible-- the entire Gameplay community is largely within large regions with large Delegates, which means large voting power. Combined with regional residents commonly voting with their Delegates and Delegates voting immediately to make WA Members vote for whichever option is meeting, this is quite frankly very easy to do.

[Sandaoguo]

It shouldn't be the responsibility of 10-20 players to control the content of tens of thousands of players.

Yes, it should. NationStates doesn't need to allow player-posted content, and if it does then it has a public responsibility to moderate that content. This view of your responsibility as an operator of a website, regardless if you're paid or a volunteer, is about 10 years out of date. NationStates moderators and admins, as a whole, like to believe that this is a special website that exists outside the context of the rest of the internet, like social media websites and all the toxicity and moderation problems that exists "out there."

That's an actively harmful belief, especially when NationStates owes its continued growth to social media, particularly ones that are rife with problematic niche communities and have been a poster children of How Not To Do Moderation. Ironically, the attitude you and the rest of the moderation team have consistently displayed when it comes to moderating is pretty much the same as Reddit's was years ago. NationStates is merely lucky that it hasn't been a neo-fascist, alt-right, white supremacist subreddit (or Gab, or whatever new social media fascists create) that's been the source of a new-player bomb. The more NationStates signals itself as a viable outlet whose moderators think cosplaying fascism is a Freedom Of Speech Issue (and will also voluntarily blind themselves to anything being coordinated off the nationstate.net domain), the more likely this website is going to attract the truly worst people. But yeah, it shouldn't be the responsibility of 10-20 players to prevent that.

[Old Hope]

It shouldn't be the responsibility of 10-20 players to control the content of tens of thousands of players.

Yes, it should. NationStates doesn't need to allow player-posted content, and if it does then it has a public responsibility to moderate that content. This view of your responsibility as an operator of a website, regardless if you're paid or a volunteer, is about 10 years out of date. NationStates moderators and admins, as a whole, like to believe that this is a special website that exists outside the context of the rest of the internet, like social media websites and all the toxicity and moderation problems that exists "out there."

That's an actively harmful belief, especially when NationStates owes its continued growth to social media, particularly ones that are rife with problematic niche communities and have been a poster children of How Not To Do Moderation. Ironically, the attitude you and the rest of the moderation team have consistently displayed when it comes to moderating is pretty much the same as Reddit's was years ago. NationStates is merely lucky that it hasn't been a neo-fascist, alt-right, white supremacist subreddit (or Gab, or whatever new social media fascists create) that's been the source of a new-player bomb. The more NationStates signals itself as a viable outlet whose moderators think cosplaying fascism is a Freedom Of Speech Issue (and will also voluntarily blind themselves to anything being coordinated off the nationstate.net domain), the more likely this website is going to attract the truly worst people. But yeah, it shouldn't be the responsibility of 10-20 players to prevent that.

The position of the admins and the mods is a bit more nuanced than that.
Things that the community can handle are given to the community, usually. To reduce the admin/mod workload.
But the mods do stop countless spammers and do have a policy against nazi regions and/or glorifications of genocide. A neo-fascist alt-right nation surge would likely increase the number of bans, and the admins can and will change rules if it is obvious that there's a problem.

[ShrewLlamaLand]

It shouldn't be the responsibility of 10-20 players to control the content of tens of thousands of players.

Yes, it should. NationStates doesn't need to allow player-posted content, and if it does then it has a public responsibility to moderate that content. This view of your responsibility as an operator of a website, regardless if you're paid or a volunteer, is about 10 years out of date. NationStates moderators and admins, as a whole, like to believe that this is a special website that exists outside the context of the rest of the internet, like social media websites and all the toxicity and moderation problems that exists "out there."

That's an actively harmful belief, especially when NationStates owes its continued growth to social media, particularly ones that are rife with problematic niche communities and have been a poster children of How Not To Do Moderation. Ironically, the attitude you and the rest of the moderation team have consistently displayed when it comes to moderating is pretty much the same as Reddit's was years ago. NationStates is merely lucky that it hasn't been a neo-fascist, alt-right, white supremacist subreddit (or Gab, or whatever new social media fascists create) that's been the source of a new-player bomb. The more NationStates signals itself as a viable outlet whose moderators think cosplaying fascism is a Freedom Of Speech Issue (and will also voluntarily blind themselves to anything being coordinated off the nationstate.net domain), the more likely this website is going to attract the truly worst people. But yeah, it shouldn't be the responsibility of 10-20 players to prevent that.

This was a really good take up until the second last sentence. lmao

Mod says they have a significant workload without trying to overly police user content. Your suggestion is that they're obligated to not only police user content onsite (which I think is fair), but that also they need to sort through and somehow police content offsite... and throw in the implication that anyone cosplaying as a fascist nation is an irl fascist, but the same doesn't apply to say, communism, which is just fine.

[Flanderlion]

I know you also made a comment about not making changes to recruitment, but I think I remember there was some rule or courtesy things about GCRs not recruiting in UCRs... Will this be a thing? Will Frontiers be allowed to recruit of GCRs and viceversa as normally UCRs will? Will there be any policy changes regarding that? Perhaps you already replied to this things, or your "recruitment" comment includes this, just making sure.

RMB recruitment - at present no changes planned; I don't want to expand that to Frontiers too; if we were doing anything with it, I'd prefer to see it banned as it has always been pointless spam.

Yes please.

---

It shouldn't be easy to appoint a new founder if your region does not have a founder. It's great for the individual region, but it's terrible for gameplay. Returning the old founder is good, but adding a new one should be either SC appointed or impossible. Custodian wouldn't be necessary if a region could just appoint a founder from it's regional controls. I agree there should be opt outs, but they shouldn't be super easy, as otherwise we'll just have the same situation of not many regions for R/D, just different names for them.

--

Embargo - sure, I thought it was a good tool, so I was for it. But if people are concerned about the abuse that might happen, it can be canned entirely, or be on the table for 'if needed' later, making it more simple to implement.

--

For the resolution stopping existing/preventing new transitions either way - constitutional deadlock, adjournment, stagnation, stoppage. I don't think any of my suggestions were good, just I think Preserve as a name is better for other possible future SC resolutions - e.g. a resolution preventing a region from CTEing, rather than being used here on a resolution that barely fits the name.

Safeguard? Conserve? Secure? Inhibit?

Of those inhibit is best, but it's not a particularly great name. I'd prefer it to preserve though until a better name appears.

[Sedgistan]

Then enforce the rules, rather than deferring them to the community. The Moderation Team is making a wholly OOC SC category for the purposes of stopping OOC nonsense. I never said anything about content, I said regions with bad OOC behavior. Doxxing, harassment. I ask again, why can't the Moderation Team deal with that instead of deferring it to the community by making a category designed explicitly to moderate?

We do enforce the rules. The rules do not include things such as the current Gameplay kerfluffle of August apparently saying offsite that someone is as bad as some other guys in a region who might have doxxed(?) people, or thinking back to another "OOC" issue, Jakker making a poorly judged comparison between a region and another one that used to identify as fascist. Neither of those are remotely close to rules violations - you'll find absolutely no website anywhere across the internet would ban people for that stuff. But it's technically "OOC" and the gameplay community considers it problematic.

"OOC" bad behaviour is not all horrific OOC behaviour. It also encompasses the stuff above (poor judgement / poor taste), and other even more minor nuisances such as someone double posting slightly spammy comments on an RMB, which players have been dealing with for years via suppression/bans.

No-one has ever claimed that "Embargo" is a "wholly OOC SC category for the purposes of stopping OOC nonsense" aside from yourself. Yes, it has the potential for dealing with those OOC issues which are outside the jurisdiction of the site rules - and that was part of the intention, but it also has the potential to be used for wholly IC matters, which was the other part of the intention.

For starters-- Embargo is not efficient at the task what it seeks to solve compared to other options. What Embargo is, is a SC Category that automatically prevents Embargoed regions from getting new nations spawned in, should they be a Frontier. There are a number of flaws with this line- for starters, this is largely inferior to the Invading mechanic. What Invading does is bans all residents, appoints an Invader as the Delegate, passwords the region, and eventually refounds the region. This is, objectively, far more effective than an Embargo ever will be, when it comes to dealing with OOC transgressions. Embargoes is not effective at removing regional history, ensuring nobody can enter the region, or straight up refounding the region. What is the point of Embargo, when there is another feature that does the job Embargo seeks to do far better?

That's a much better argument, though it's still missing that Embargo is very much meant for IC issues, in which case full destruction of the region may be seen as too severe a retribution when a less severe Embargo (that can subsequently be repealed when IC goals are met) may achieve the same ends.

Embargo can quickly move out of hand. The Moderation Team has explicitly said in this thread that this is designed for OOC moderation. However, there is no safeguard or other form of deterrent to ensure it stays that way. What stops players from Embargoing regions that majority of players disagree with In-Character. What stops players from turning Embargo into a popularity contest, only for regions that are popular within the Gameplay sphere? This is entirely possible-- the entire Gameplay community is largely within large regions with large Delegates, which means large voting power. Combined with regional residents commonly voting with their Delegates and Delegates voting immediately to make WA Members vote for whichever option is meeting, this is quite frankly very easy to do.

Again, your understanding of Embargo is wrong (it's meant for IC purposes) but yes, there is a concern that it will stifle more creative/controversial gameplay. Someone did also suggest somewhere that all the feeders may try Embargoing every Frontier (which would be an intriguing prospect).

I remain on the fence regarding Embargo, and am open to keeping it in reserve for later.

[Sailiopia]

So as per what Sedge has said, I think people in this thread are misinterpreting the purpose of embargo. It's not exactly meant to be for OOC community policing or moderator laziness, in fact not at all. I see it as very similar to condemning regions, but for when a proposal author wants to pack more of a punch than just bad publicity (as sometimes condemnation can be used for RP purposes rather than as expressing dismay) for a region. It should really come with a warning for authors to report rule-breaking activity rather than write a proposal on it, so that it can be used in response to events (e.g. the current drama regarding August) or for actions against IC fascists and communists, as an example.

While I would mildly support it's introduction, it might be more pragmatic to put it on the backburner, see whether it's needed, and then consider introducing it a month or two down the line.

Custodian - without wanting to read through the entire thread (I've checked the last few pages and the OP), I do wish to say that I think the details of this need to be ironed out as they're a little confusing at the moment. Possibly it should mean that a) frontiers that have the resolution passed for them become strongholds and b) this can also work for founderless strongholds (including current founderless regions). Basically it should mean that founders can be appointed, just through a fairly cumbersome and lengthy process.

[Galiantus III]

I fundamentally disagree with the idea Embargo ought to be available for in-character problems. Gameplay has really struggled with a lack of villains, and the last thing we need is an easier way to punish them than invasion.

Just imagine if this option was available during times when the NPO was particularly hated. This would have had a dramatic chilling effect on them. They would have either acquiesced to their enemies or been hurt severely - possibly even destroyed.

The ability of a region to benefit from being a frontier should absolutely not be up for popular vote. The end result will be that any frontier which can easily be portrayed as a villain will be embargoed by popular demand. This will only serve to keep gameplay stale and tend to remove the most compelling conflict.

[ShrewLlamaLand]

I fundamentally disagree with the idea Embargo ought to be available for in-character problems. Gameplay has really struggled with a lack of villains, and the last thing we need is an easier way to punish them than invasion.

Just imagine if this option was available during times when the NPO was particularly hated. This would have had a dramatic chilling effect on them. They would have either acquiesced to their enemies or been hurt severely - possibly even destroyed.

The ability of a region to benefit from being a frontier should absolutely not be up for popular vote. The end result will be that any frontier which can easily be portrayed as a villain will be embargoed by popular demand. This will only serve to keep gameplay stale and tend to remove the most compelling conflict.

Agree with this in principle. I think Embargo would almost certainly do more harm than good to gameplay, and in the unlikely event that it turns out such a feature would be worthwhile it can always be added later.

Realistically, I think in practice any Frontier region that tries to play the villain will simply be invaded. It's one update instead of taking the time to draft a proposal, campaign, wait for the proposal to reach queue, and then four days at vote with no guarantee it will pass anyway depending on gameplay politics at the time.

The security concerns associated with becoming a Frontier means that any region even slightly inclined to play the villain will simply remain a stronghold, as none are large enough to be immune to occupation (including the largest current villain region, with 95 endorsements on yours truly)... and in turn, this lack of recruitment makes it even more difficult for villain regions to be established and grow. While this would be exacerbated by the existence of Embargo, I think this is a problem with the Frontier/Stronghold mechanics proposed in general.

[Haganham]

I fundamentally disagree with the idea Embargo ought to be available for in-character problems. Gameplay has really struggled with a lack of villains, and the last thing we need is an easier way to punish them than invasion.

Just imagine if this option was available during times when the NPO was particularly hated. This would have had a dramatic chilling effect on them. They would have either acquiesced to their enemies or been hurt severely - possibly even destroyed.

The ability of a region to benefit from being a frontier should absolutely not be up for popular vote. The end result will be that any frontier which can easily be portrayed as a villain will be embargoed by popular demand. This will only serve to keep gameplay stale and tend to remove the most compelling conflict.

Wait, is embargo supposed to affect feeders too?

[Galiantus III]

No. I was giving an example.

[Imperium of Josh]

Well, at least the names are far less off-putting now. Frontier>Gateway any day too.

[Sedgistan]

The OP has been updated:

• "Embargo" SC Category on hold. Will be reviewed post-implementation of the wider project to see if it is necessary.
• Names are set as Frontiers / Strongholds. Sorry, no Gateways here.
• Frontier -> Stronghold transition gives Founder back Executive status if the nation still exists. If it doesn't, the WA Delegate (at the final moment of transition) gets the Executive Founder spot. Ensures that a region that moves to Stronghold gets a Founder. This also provides a (convoluted and risky) solution for Founderless Strongholds to get a new Founder.
• Question that needs answering on that direction of transition is whether a password can in place during the process. I am leaning towards allowing it, because "Preserve" can be used to handle unwanted transitions.
• "Preserve" SC Category remains in need of a good name. This category is definitely needed, especially with the changes above.
• "Custodian" SC Category remains just a possible. I am leaning towards treating this the same as "Embargo" - i.e. hold off and review for now.

I also added in the one week eligibility waiting period for Frontiers to get spawnings, as I apparently failed to edit that in last time.

This project is close to being finalised, so input on the outstanding questions would be appreciated.

[ShrewLlamaLand]

[*]Frontier -> Stronghold transition gives Founder back Executive status if the nation still exists. If it doesn't, the WA Delegate (at the final moment of transition) gets the Executive Founder spot. Ensures that a region that moves to Stronghold gets a Founder. This also provides a (convoluted and risky) solution for Founderless Strongholds to get a new Founder.

Is the Delegate updated before or after the transition is processed?

[Sedgistan]

[*]Frontier -> Stronghold transition gives Founder back Executive status if the nation still exists. If it doesn't, the WA Delegate (at the final moment of transition) gets the Executive Founder spot. Ensures that a region that moves to Stronghold gets a Founder. This also provides a (convoluted and risky) solution for Founderless Strongholds to get a new Founder.

Is the Delegate updated before or after the transition is processed?

Sniping of the Founder position by stealing the Delegacy at the latest possible moment? That's tempting. I am open to either.

[ShrewLlamaLand]

Is the Delegate updated before or after the transition is processed?

Sniping of the Founder position by stealing the Delegacy at the latest possible moment? That's tempting. I am open to either.

Honestly, my preference would be that the WA Delegate who intitates the transition is appointed as the new Founder, regardless of any Delegate change afterwards.

This is probably the least exciting option, but to me seems more balanced R/D wise - they need to intitate the transition with their own influence, and if another force was to take control the region in that time there's still plenty of opportunity for them to cancel the transition, but to appoint a Founder of their own they'd need to reset the timer and manage to hold the region for a decent period of time instead of just taking over at the last update.

Out of those two options though, I'd have to go with sniping as it makes for more exciting gameplay... although realistically it doesn't matter all that much as no activity can really happen between updates, so the outcome is just determined 12 hours later.

[Sedgistan]

I should add that "extending the timer" on a Delegacy change is definitely an option we can consider.

[The Stalker]

I would say allow frontiers to have passwords, they just don't spawn nations if they do.

So in theory, a founderless region could have it's password up, change to frontier, then change to stronghold, and the delegate becomes founder.

Lengthy enough process the SC could pass a Preserve to stop it from happening if necessary.

I would also say that the Delegate who initiate it would become founder, and if the delegate seat changes it cancels the transition.

[Haganham]

Is the Delegate updated before or after the transition is processed?

Sniping of the Founder position by stealing the Delegacy at the latest possible moment? That's tempting. I am open to either.

A game over with no play or counter? Boring.

[Galiantus III]

Looks good, Sedge!

I support the Preserve SC category, and I agree with your assessment about it being necessary if passwords are allowed.

While I feel Custodian is needed, I guess it isn't an urgent need. My main concern is I don't want to be encouraging strongholds to make some convoluted and risky changes that would cause them to miss out on a much better solution to their security. This is especially true for old regions with large influence stores that could decay during their time as a frontier. For these regions it might be better to wait for the Custodian option. But if it isn't immediately available, some might take totally unnecessary risks when they take the convoluted approach.

[Flanderlion]

[*]Frontier -> Stronghold transition gives Founder back Executive status if the nation still exists. If it doesn't, the WA Delegate (at the final moment of transition) gets the Executive Founder spot. Ensures that a region that moves to Stronghold gets a Founder. This also provides a (convoluted and risky) solution for Founderless Strongholds to get a new Founder.

Still far too easy to appoint a new founder - gives game over R/D solution which is just the logical way to take over a region, and gives no recourse to the natives, who are essentially screwed once it happens. Sure, a SC resolution could be passed, but that's not assured, especially if it is a region like TNP invading a region like CCD.

Change wise I think it's still too easy for a founder to be replaced involuntarily if there is at least a minimal amount of SC interference and the founder being less active.

Custodian should be the only form for appointing a new (not reinstating the old) founder.

[Sedgistan]

[*]Frontier -> Stronghold transition gives Founder back Executive status if the nation still exists. If it doesn't, the WA Delegate (at the final moment of transition) gets the Executive Founder spot. Ensures that a region that moves to Stronghold gets a Founder. This also provides a (convoluted and risky) solution for Founderless Strongholds to get a new Founder.

Still far too easy to appoint a new founder - gives game over R/D solution which is just the logical way to take over a region, and gives no recourse to the natives, who are essentially screwed once it happens. Sure, a SC resolution could be passed, but that's not assured, especially if it is a region like TNP invading a region like CCD.

Change wise I think it's still too easy for a founder to be replaced involuntarily if there is at least a minimal amount of SC interference and the founder being less active.

Custodian should be the only form for appointing a new (not reinstating the old) founder.

Okay, if we look at the hypothetical you've mentioned: CCD have (contrary to what anyone would expect them to do) become a Frontier region, meaning Jocospor loses Executive powers. TNP invade them. They now want to turn them into a Stronghold so they can permanently "own" the region. That only works if Jocospor has CTEd; if the nation still exists, TNP turning the region into a Stronghold gives Joco back his Executive Founder status, and the invasion is over*. If Jocospor has CTEd then it's a different scenario - TNP turning the region into a Stronghold gets them Executive Founder status for their invading delegate, and they can lock down the place permanently. The WA passing a "Preserve" resolution to prevent the switch would just not happen in this situation.

*In that situation, TNP would just secret password and lock the region down, booting all natives; without a (highly unlikely) Liberation proposal, no-one would have a way of switching the region back to Stronghold for Jocospor to regain Executive Founder status.

The other option is that switching from Frontier -> Stronghold means that the original Founder regains Executive status regardless of whether they're CTEd or not, and we have a Custodian category that appoints a "Custodian" (Executive powers when region is a Stronghold). In this case, TNP and friends invade CCD, pile it to high heaven, and pass a Custodian resolution on the region, appointing one of their own as Custodian. They empty out the natives, then switch to Stronghold (we're assuming here that Jocospor has CTEd, otherwise they obviously wouldn't make that switch - they'd empty/password as per the above asterisk point). It's effectively the same end-game, with TNP having a WA-appointed quasi-founder of the region, and the place is theirs. There's a chance that Jocospor could return from being CTEd (assuming the nation wasn't mod-bombed), which I guess is the only thing that makes this slightly less secure than the hypothetical above - so there's more incentive then to just empty/password. The WA passing this Custodian proposal for TNP against CCD is without a doubt, likewise there's no way anyone would pass a "Preserve" to try and save CCD.

As I've said from the start, I like the idea of having some means of permanent conquest finally in-game that isn't 1) history erasing re-founds, or 2) locked down dead passworded regions, although the latter would remain a valid tactic in some cases. However, that needs to be balanced with ensuring there's the chance of a fair fight - so if we're going to make changes, I'm more open to things like extending the transition by X days if the Delegacy changes, or simply increasing the transition time from Frontier to Stronghold. Or some other solution that hasn't been suggested yet.

[Old Hope]

Still far too easy to appoint a new founder - gives game over R/D solution which is just the logical way to take over a region, and gives no recourse to the natives, who are essentially screwed once it happens. Sure, a SC resolution could be passed, but that's not assured, especially if it is a region like TNP invading a region like CCD.

Change wise I think it's still too easy for a founder to be replaced involuntarily if there is at least a minimal amount of SC interference and the founder being less active.

Custodian should be the only form for appointing a new (not reinstating the old) founder.

Okay, if we look at the hypothetical you've mentioned: CCD have (contrary to what anyone would expect them to do) become a Frontier region, meaning Jocospor loses Executive powers. TNP invade them. They now want to turn them into a Stronghold so they can permanently "own" the region. That only works if Jocospor has CTEd; if the nation still exists, TNP turning the region into a Stronghold gives Joco back his Executive Founder status, and the invasion is over*. If Jocospor has CTEd then it's a different scenario - TNP turning the region into a Stronghold gets them Executive Founder status for their invading delegate, and they can lock down the place permanently. The WA passing a "Preserve" resolution to prevent the switch would just not happen in this situation.

*In that situation, TNP would just secret password and lock the region down, booting all natives; without a (highly unlikely) Liberation proposal, no-one would have a way of switching the region back to Stronghold for Jocospor to regain Executive Founder status.

The other option is that switching from Frontier -> Stronghold means that the original Founder regains Executive status regardless of whether they're CTEd or not, and we have a Custodian category that appoints a "Custodian" (Executive powers when region is a Stronghold). In this case, TNP and friends invade CCD, pile it to high heaven, and pass a Custodian resolution on the region, appointing one of their own as Custodian. They empty out the natives, then switch to Stronghold (we're assuming here that Jocospor has CTEd, otherwise they obviously wouldn't make that switch - they'd empty/password as per the above asterisk point). It's effectively the same end-game, with TNP having a WA-appointed quasi-founder of the region, and the place is theirs. There's a chance that Jocospor could return from being CTEd (assuming the nation wasn't mod-bombed), which I guess is the only thing that makes this slightly less secure than the hypothetical above - so there's more incentive then to just empty/password. The WA passing this Custodian proposal for TNP against CCD is without a doubt, likewise there's no way anyone would pass a "Preserve" to try and save CCD.

As I've said from the start, I like the idea of having some means of permanent conquest finally in-game that isn't 1) history erasing re-founds, or 2) locked down dead passworded regions, although the latter would remain a valid tactic in some cases. However, that needs to be balanced with ensuring there's the chance of a fair fight - so if we're going to make changes, I'm more open to things like extending the transition by X days if the Delegacy changes, or simply increasing the transition time from Frontier to Stronghold. Or some other solution that hasn't been suggested yet.

There'd be also a possibility of giving nations in the region an influence-based vote on it, cancelling the transition if the influence against reaches double the influence for or if the influence against reaches more than 50% of the regional influence. This way, influence still matters.

[Flanderlion]

Still far too easy to appoint a new founder - gives game over R/D solution which is just the logical way to take over a region, and gives no recourse to the natives, who are essentially screwed once it happens. Sure, a SC resolution could be passed, but that's not assured, especially if it is a region like TNP invading a region like CCD.

Change wise I think it's still too easy for a founder to be replaced involuntarily if there is at least a minimal amount of SC interference and the founder being less active.

Custodian should be the only form for appointing a new (not reinstating the old) founder.

Okay, if we look at the hypothetical you've mentioned: CCD have (contrary to what anyone would expect them to do) become a Frontier region, meaning Jocospor loses Executive powers. TNP invade them. They now want to turn them into a Stronghold so they can permanently "own" the region. That only works if Jocospor has CTEd; if the nation still exists, TNP turning the region into a Stronghold gives Joco back his Executive Founder status, and the invasion is over*. If Jocospor has CTEd then it's a different scenario - TNP turning the region into a Stronghold gets them Executive Founder status for their invading delegate, and they can lock down the place permanently. The WA passing a "Preserve" resolution to prevent the switch would just not happen in this situation.

*In that situation, TNP would just secret password and lock the region down, booting all natives; without a (highly unlikely) Liberation proposal, no-one would have a way of switching the region back to Stronghold for Jocospor to regain Executive Founder status.

The other option is that switching from Frontier -> Stronghold means that the original Founder regains Executive status regardless of whether they're CTEd or not, and we have a Custodian category that appoints a "Custodian" (Executive powers when region is a Stronghold). In this case, TNP and friends invade CCD, pile it to high heaven, and pass a Custodian resolution on the region, appointing one of their own as Custodian. They empty out the natives, then switch to Stronghold (we're assuming here that Jocospor has CTEd, otherwise they obviously wouldn't make that switch - they'd empty/password as per the above asterisk point). It's effectively the same end-game, with TNP having a WA-appointed quasi-founder of the region, and the place is theirs. There's a chance that Jocospor could return from being CTEd (assuming the nation wasn't mod-bombed), which I guess is the only thing that makes this slightly less secure than the hypothetical above - so there's more incentive then to just empty/password. The WA passing this Custodian proposal for TNP against CCD is without a doubt, likewise there's no way anyone would pass a "Preserve" to try and save CCD.

As I've said from the start, I like the idea of having some means of permanent conquest finally in-game that isn't 1) history erasing re-founds, or 2) locked down dead passworded regions, although the latter would remain a valid tactic in some cases. However, that needs to be balanced with ensuring there's the chance of a fair fight - so if we're going to make changes, I'm more open to things like extending the transition by X days if the Delegacy changes, or simply increasing the transition time from Frontier to Stronghold. Or some other solution that hasn't been suggested yet.

I like the other option, as that'd be a special circumstance if a raid managed to appoint a Custodian to takeover the region. I don't mind the odd region receiving a new founder, just I think for gameplay having that as a regular occurrence would be negative, as there is no counterplay once a new nation has founder in option A. At least with a Custodian, if NS no longer believes the founder should keep power, they can be removed. Plus it kind of destroys the whole purpose of this change from my POV (of making more regions opting into R/D).

If regions find it harder to lose their founder (through succession in Stronghold), while being able to appoint a new founder whenever they want if they don't have a founder (either through Custodian, which is subject to the SC, or through regional controls, which no restrictions at all), and being able to return their founder whenever they want (if a region chooses Frontier to go back to Stronghold). Like, I do accept why people want these things, but it has kind of morphed from an idea to persuade regions to give up their founders, to an idea that removes most of the cons of removing a founder by making them super easy to regain power/replace with a new founder. So I'm fine for old founders of frontiers to return to power once a region leaves frontier status, fine with founder succession for strongholds, but I'm not fine with regions being able to appoint a new founder without SC involvement.

I still think (and yes, I know it's been half a decade since I pushed for it) Annexation is the best for R/D endgames - but that's long-term. History erasing re-founds could be stopped entirely by the game (in multiple ways depending on preference) once there is some other form of endgame, it's not like other aspects of R/D where there is no way to prevent it without hurting natives/normal play.

[Sedgistan]

I would say allow frontiers to have passwords, they just don't spawn nations if they do.

So in theory, a founderless region could have it's password up, change to frontier, then change to stronghold, and the delegate becomes founder.

Lengthy enough process the SC could pass a Preserve to stop it from happening if necessary.

Yeah, it looks like there would be a method for regions in Hell's position to gain a Founder. It's a bit convoluted, but providing you don't have loads of enemies able to use the SC (Liberations/Preservations) then it's relatively secure.

I am open to both this:

if the delegate seat changes it cancels the transition.

and this:

I should add that "extending the timer" on a Delegacy change is definitely an option we can consider.

...but want more feedback on these ideas.