Frontiers, Governors, Successors and Injunctions

[Sedgistan]

In the past we have tested some new features on our "playground" version of NS ("NS3"). Sometimes this has been staff only, sometimes we invite some players on board, picked by whichever staff member is leading the change. Until we get to the stage of having features coded there and ready to test, I don't intend to work out who/how it'll be tested.

[Sedgistan]

I've had some further feedback from Violet on names of some of the aspects being introduced in F/S (e.g. "Anchor"), so potentially some of those will change.

Going into those:

"Stronghold" - sounds more like a fortress than a region. It also doesn't pair well with "Frontier". Idedally we'd like an antonym to "Frontier" - something that sounds like a region, but more settled, secure, perhaps older. Frontier/Stronghold were the words that were hardest to come up with for this project, so finding a replacement for "Stronghold" won't be easy.

"Anchor" - Violet doesn't like this, as it's "a physical object being used as a metaphor for a concept (i.e. our "Anchor" would prevent a change in category type, rather than stopping physical movement)". We had lots of other options - e.g. Fortify / Preserve / Entrench / Freeze.

"Transition" - i.e. a region transitioning from Frontier -> Stronghold. Possibly non-ideal word as it's now primarily associated with trans issues among the site demographic, and it would be better not to conflate the issues. Anyone have a better idea? Obvious alternatives such as "Realignment" have the same problem or are just a bit dull like "Changeover".

[Haganham]

Heartland seems like the best of frontier's anonyms, footing the bill as far as what was requested, but I don't think any of frontier's antonyms are as effective a description of the mechanical difference as stronghold is. The thing that made Stronghold so good is that it captures what makes their mechanics unique, their immunity to military interventions.

You don't get that with opposites to frontier because frontiers are only the opposites of strongholds in the sense of stability, because frontiers are far from the heartland and the institutions that give a place stability, a trade of for... whatever it is that causes people to settle that particular frontier, usually the ability to grow; which is why frontier works so well as a descriptor for these regions, they're commiting to the same tradeoff.

I don't think it's possible to capture the mechanics of these region types as well as stronghold and have terms that are opposites, because these regions aren't not going to be truly opposites of one another; not without getting into the sort of nitty gritty metagame context that can't be reduced to a word.

[One Small Island]

I never liked stronghold.

I'm gonna suggest Protectorate. Since "strongholds" are regions that are under the protection of their founder, whereas frontiers are more vulnerable.

[Sandaoguo]

There isn't really a single-world antonym of frontier in English, at least for the sense you're using it. A "frontier" is a concept of not being in an established civilization, not a physical thing you can see or touch. If you want the terms to be antonyms, you're probably gonna have to come up with a completely different couplet.

There's no reason why these need to have specific names. Given how many months have been spent just trying to find succinct labels so we can refer to a region as X or Y, maybe that suggests it's the wrong direction. If I was designing this game, I'd decide on a theme for what these feature sets cover. (But tbh "Strongholds" have such a limited feature set, it's hard to actually set them apart... There's just not much you're doing there.) If the Stronghold idea was more than just being a necessary "not Frontier" counterpart, I would maybe think of it in terms of the Cold War. Soviet Union constructing the Iron Wall, maybe even have the theme being literally "Construct Iron Wall" around your region.

Really, abandoning Democracy/Autocracy was a bad idea and just hurt your naming goal. Because you're obviously trying to impart ideological judgment on which feature set gets chosen. Frontiers get higher spawning... as long as they adopt liberal policies on who can join their regions and the only person with executive power must be elected. It's fundamentally ideological, but for whatever reason y'all shied away from just going all in on it. Stop letting users define every single aspect of the game design. Who cares that Democracy/Autocracy wouldn't always logically apply to the self-chosen form of roleplay government people choose? That's not your problem as a game designer.

But anyways, my suggestion would be to abandon the idea of having a neat little couplet of labels, and instead just apply some thematic elements to the actual actions regions are taking when adopting the feature sets.

[Sedgistan]

Democracy/Autocracy wasn't well received by those regions that had rich democratic histories but who wanted to maintain the security of an Executive Founder.

"Union" has been floated behind the scenes; a region being either an insecure, unsettled "Frontier" or a stable and settled "Union" of nations.

Discussing names isn't holding anything up at present, but we need to settle them before January.

[Klaus Devestatorie]

When I see frontiers, I always interpreted the term in a manifest destiny or homestead act manner, perhaps even approaching a town planning kind of definition. I'd suggest "Surveyed" in place of Stronghold, and "Pioneer" if you have to replace "Frontier". That might come off as dull, though.

[Sedgistan]

"Frontier" is staying - we're happy with that term. There's even an aspiring future-Frontier region using that name.

[Tinhampton]

Frontier/Union sounds very cool, I will admit!

[Ankuran]

Democracy/Autocracy wasn't well received by those regions that had rich democratic histories but who wanted to maintain the security of an Executive Founder.

"Union" has been floated behind the scenes; a region being either an insecure, unsettled "Frontier" or a stable and settled "Union" of nations.

Discussing names isn't holding anything up at present, but we need to settle them before January.

If direct antonyms won't work and Union is being floated, maybe Frontiers/Federations for the alliteration?

[Reventus Koth]

Back when I wrote the original Faction Gameplay proposal 4 years ago (holy shit), I called what would eventually become Strongholds and Frontiers, "Electors" and "Territories". They hardly seem appropriate now, after the idea has changed so drastically, but the idea of territories in general is still going to be relevant once this overhaul drops. With that in mind,

Stronghold: Mechanics wise, I agree with Haganham that this is a fundamentally good word for what the region actually is. I also agree with them that "Heartland" is a decent substitute. However, the term makes optimal sense only when a stronghold is the "capital" of a dominion, which may possess multiple "stronghold" territories, as trophies or otherwise. Since we don't want to be restrictive about what "strongholds" are actually used for, I suggest the term Settlement, as it is the closest antonym I can think of for a Frontier.

Anchor: The point of the "Anchor" is to enforce status quo, interfering with the colonization or decolonization process. I get the feeling that terms like "Meddle", "Interfere", "Assert", and "Dispute" might all be too loaded for admin to consider here, but whatever you go with should lean into the role of the SC in this context to act as a meddling overseeing body that is preventing an action fron taking place. My best suggestion is Intercede, but even then I anticipate grammatical issues.

Alternatively, don't give the SC even more power to arbitrarily mess with the game without drastically overhauling its current mechanics, that works too.

Transition: A Frontier is settled to become a Settlement. Just call it Settle, it's that simple.

[Sedgistan]

Back when I wrote the original Faction Gameplay proposal 4 years ago (holy shit), I called what would eventually become Strongholds and Frontiers, "Electors" and "Territories". They hardly seem appropriate now, after the idea has changed so drastically, but the idea of territories in general is still going to be relevant once this overhaul drops.

It's a historical aside, but Frontiers/Strongholds originated in an idea proposed internally by Violet in March 2015 that itself germinated in discussions over Regional Officers implementation dating back to December 2013. That March 2015 proposal had six(!) "tiers" of region, and was the first one that tied "nation inflow" to founder/delegate statuses. That got simplified down to 3 tiers (Democracy / Oligarchy / Autocracy) around October 2015, and was first mentioned publicly by Violet a further year later in October 2016. So by the time this is hopefully implemented, it'd actually be an 8 year timespan from original idea to going live.

[Reventus Koth]

So by the time this is hopefully implemented, it'd actually be an 8 year timespan from original idea to going live.

Note to self: never underestimate the incubation period behind the scenes for anything admin eventually overhauls

[Haganham]

That got simplified down to 3 tiers (Democracy / Oligarchy / Autocracy) around October 2015

hey that's a good idea, we should consider it...

[Numero Capitan]

I like Heartland, whatever is chosen has to reflect the in-world scale properly. It’s a word for a region of nations not a individual city or nation. Heartland is the only suggestion above that comes close without a move away from geographical terminology (Bloc?)

[Shadow Panther]

Main / Mainland? As in, the "Spanish Main" or "Mainland China." Seems to usually refer to a country or land or continent that doesn't include any outlying territories or islands. Just a thought.

[Narvatus]

Main / Mainland? As in, the "Spanish Main" or "Mainland China." Seems to usually refer to a country or land or continent that doesn't include any outlying territories or islands. Just a thought.

This line has given me the idea of Metropole as the new name (eg. "Metropolitan France", and specifically metropole as in the center of an empire or civilization as opposed to metropolis as a city), and seems to contrast well with Frontier.

[King HEM]

What about "bastion"? It can be interpreted the same way as "stronghold" but there's also potentially some philosophic interpretations of the word too (e.g. as bastion can be an institution//place strongly defending or upholding particular principles >> civilization).

[Sedgistan]

What about "bastion"? It can be interpreted the same way as "stronghold" but there's also potentially some philosophic interpretations of the word too (e.g. as bastion can be an institution//place strongly defending or upholding particular principles >> civilization).

I like that.

[Haganham]

Bastion is an excellent fit, a more elegant version of stronghold; but I'd think it would be rejected for the same reason as stronghold.


as for transitioning, maybe different terms for which way your going for help,
frontier->stronghold=entrench
stronghold->frontier=liberalize

I realize liberalize has connotations, but given that people who are applying the policy, or advocating for such a move presumably agree with those connotations(it's better to be more open at the expense of having a lockdown on control) that seems fine.

[Galiantus III]

Bastion is an excellent fit, a more elegant version of stronghold; but I'd think it would be rejected for the same reason as stronghold.


as for transitioning, maybe different terms for which way your going for help,
frontier->stronghold=entrench
stronghold->frontier=liberalize

I realize liberalize has connotations, but given that people who are applying the policy, or advocating for such a move presumably agree with those connotations(it's better to be more open at the expense of having a lockdown on control) that seems fine.

I really like 'entrench', but 'liberalize' feels off. How about 'expand' for stronghold->frontier? That's two syllables instead of four, and "entrench or expand" has alliteration to it.

[Rykkland]

What about "bastion"? It can be interpreted the same way as "stronghold" but there's also potentially some philosophic interpretations of the word too (e.g. as bastion can be an institution//place strongly defending or upholding particular principles >> civilization).

I like that.

As a founder of a traditionally Democratic region that will remain 'strongheld', I like Bastion the most, and Union is fine. Stronghold is not something I like very much. That's my two cents.

[Mikeswill]

Does this mean that Founderless Regions remain Founderless?
ie. I am unable to ask to become Founder of NationStates and opt in the Frontier status?

[Leutria]

Does this mean that Founderless Regions remain Founderless?
ie. I am unable to ask to become Founder of NationStates and opt in the Frontier status?

Someone asked about founderless regions earlier and this is what Sedgistan said then:

They become Strongholds still, but without any Founder/Governor. So they'd effectively be the same while Strongholds. But they have the option of a risky switch to Frontier and back, which would get the Delegate the Executive Governor position at the end of it, providing them lasting security.

So my understanding is you still wouldn't get a founder, but you still could convert the region to a Frontier if you wanted. (Or if you wanted to at least have "Governor Emeritus" status you could switch to a Frontier, back to a Stronghold, and then back to a Frontier again. Since each switch is 2 weeks, it would take you 6 weeks to do that).

[Comfed]

Does this mean that Founderless Regions remain Founderless?
ie. I am unable to ask to become Founder of NationStates and opt in the Frontier status?

Someone asked about founderless regions earlier and this is what Sedgistan said then:

They become Strongholds still, but without any Founder/Governor. So they'd effectively be the same while Strongholds. But they have the option of a risky switch to Frontier and back, which would get the Delegate the Executive Governor position at the end of it, providing them lasting security.

So my understanding is you still wouldn't get a founder, but you still could convert the region to a Frontier if you wanted. (Or if you wanted to at least have "Governor Emeritus" status you could switch to a Frontier, back to a Stronghold, and then back to a Frontier again. Since each switch is 2 weeks, it would take you 6 weeks to do that).

Plus, if you converted the region to frontier and back you would get executive founder powers.