NATION

PASSWORD

[Change #6] Custodian SC proposal

Bug reports, general help, ideas for improvements, and questions about how things are meant to work.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Cora II
Diplomat
 
Posts: 868
Founded: Jun 27, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Cora II » Sun Oct 18, 2015 2:31 am

How new WA-SC category for 'Custody' would work if custodians would be:

- Drafted, proposed and submitted in tradional manner, but where
- in quorum phase would function with some predetermined amount of approvals as a final voting for the resolution [against/for],
- making process more direct, possibly
- within shorter voting time frame, and where
- influence of WA-nations in the region under Custodian process would influence to votes relatively more (influence related multipliers for WA-natives) then outsiders votes?
Last edited by Cora II on Sun Oct 18, 2015 2:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
• The Black Riders Witch-Z-Queen of Cimmeria 'Cora' • Raider Extremist • War Diary
• 618+ active updates, 11195+ raided regions, 3567+ times raider delegate, 158+ updates in command, 2870+ triggered raids, 35+ occupations, 307+ banjected WA-nations •

"Cut them down!"

User avatar
Flanderlion
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1416
Founded: Nov 25, 2013
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Flanderlion » Sun Nov 15, 2015 6:20 pm

If the Custodian Proposal is pretty much giving a permanent (until a repeal - which should pass at 50% compared to the 75% needed for the initial proposal) shouldn't it be like a normal proposal - rather than making it quicker and easier than other proposals.

So this would work with both older style (no founder ever) regions, like Nationstates, and newer (founder CTEd) regions, but if the original founder returns, the Custodian position is rendered inactive.

I think this change has potential. I personally don't like the SC, but I do see that the SC is by far the best option for this. Either 66% or 75% of the vote, (I'm voting for the latter), to grant a region an Custodian, and 50% to repeal a Custodian. A Custodian is a Founder, with all the rights and privileges of a Founder, and the region acts as if it is a Foundered region, until the SC decides to repeal the Custodian initiative.
As always, I'm representing myself as a citizen, rather than as part of the Government, if I am at the time.

User avatar
United Provinces of Atlantica
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1811
Founded: Jan 02, 2013
Left-wing Utopia

Postby United Provinces of Atlantica » Tue Nov 17, 2015 6:08 pm

Perhaps various 'tiers' of Custodians could exist? Say that if a Custodian resolution passes with something ranging from 50%+1 (a simple majority) to either two-thirds or three-fourths (depending on what is decided) the person marked to become a Custodian does become a Custodian, but only temporarily, whilst if a resolution passes with above two-thirds/three-fourths, the resolution becomes permanent. Other 'tiers' in between the two could exist as well, with something passing from, say, three-fifths to two-thirds (and two-thirds to three-fourths if that decision is made) still not being permanent, but having a longer duration time than something passed from in between a simple majority and three-fifths.
Citizen of Lazarus
The Most Serene Confederation of Vasturia: FactbookConstitutionReligionOther
Warden in The Grey Wardens - Join Today!

User avatar
New Stellonia
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 6
Founded: Mar 30, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby New Stellonia » Sun Dec 06, 2015 2:08 pm

Too much oversight by the World Assembly. I find it disturbing enough that the Security Council has the power to eliminate a region's ability to defend itself via password.

User avatar
YoriZ
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 199
Founded: Antiquity
Left-wing Utopia

Postby YoriZ » Wed Mar 09, 2016 3:44 pm

Flanderlion wrote:If the Custodian Proposal is pretty much giving a permanent (until a repeal - which should pass at 50% compared to the 75% needed for the initial proposal) shouldn't it be like a normal proposal - rather than making it quicker and easier than other proposals.

So this would work with both older style (no founder ever) regions, like Nationstates, and newer (founder CTEd) regions, but if the original founder returns, the Custodian position is rendered inactive.

I think this change has potential. I personally don't like the SC, but I do see that the SC is by far the best option for this. Either 66% or 75% of the vote, (I'm voting for the latter), to grant a region an Custodian, and 50% to repeal a Custodian. A Custodian is a Founder, with all the rights and privileges of a Founder, and the region acts as if it is a Foundered region, until the SC decides to repeal the Custodian initiative.


I'm very interested in this variation of the Custodian SC Proposal.
Is there any change it might be implemented?
Ⓐrtists, not Ⓐrmies! >>>>>>> Join Anarchy

User avatar
Eluvatar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2174
Founded: Mar 31, 2006
New York Times Democracy

Postby Eluvatar » Wed Mar 09, 2016 9:36 pm

YoriZ wrote:
Flanderlion wrote:If the Custodian Proposal is pretty much giving a permanent (until a repeal - which should pass at 50% compared to the 75% needed for the initial proposal) shouldn't it be like a normal proposal - rather than making it quicker and easier than other proposals.

So this would work with both older style (no founder ever) regions, like Nationstates, and newer (founder CTEd) regions, but if the original founder returns, the Custodian position is rendered inactive.

I think this change has potential. I personally don't like the SC, but I do see that the SC is by far the best option for this. Either 66% or 75% of the vote, (I'm voting for the latter), to grant a region an Custodian, and 50% to repeal a Custodian. A Custodian is a Founder, with all the rights and privileges of a Founder, and the region acts as if it is a Foundered region, until the SC decides to repeal the Custodian initiative.


I'm very interested in this variation of the Custodian SC Proposal.
Is there any change it might be implemented?

Yes.

Do you have reasons to present for why allowing a Custodian free use of regional controls would be better than having them have to spend influence? (Assuming I'm interpreting Flanderlion's suggestion correctly.)
To Serve and Protect: UDL

Eluvatar - Taijitu member

User avatar
Flanderlion
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1416
Founded: Nov 25, 2013
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Flanderlion » Wed Mar 09, 2016 11:09 pm

Eluvatar wrote:
YoriZ wrote:
I'm very interested in this variation of the Custodian SC Proposal.
Is there any change it might be implemented?

Yes.

Do you have reasons to present for why allowing a Custodian free use of regional controls would be better than having them have to spend influence? (Assuming I'm interpreting Flanderlion's suggestion correctly.)

Been a while since I looked at this, but I think I was meaning at the time that the Custodian was meant to be a way for Founderless regions to opt out of R/D. I might have been back in November, but I'm not now too precious about them not using influence, as long as they have the founders powers (Executive for RO's etc.). Someone else can take up the cause if they feel strongly either way with the influence usage.
As always, I'm representing myself as a citizen, rather than as part of the Government, if I am at the time.

User avatar
Leppikania
Minister
 
Posts: 2291
Founded: Apr 13, 2015
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Leppikania » Thu Mar 10, 2016 1:05 pm

Flanderlion wrote:
Eluvatar wrote:Yes.

Do you have reasons to present for why allowing a Custodian free use of regional controls would be better than having them have to spend influence? (Assuming I'm interpreting Flanderlion's suggestion correctly.)

Been a while since I looked at this, but I think I was meaning at the time that the Custodian was meant to be a way for Founderless regions to opt out of R/D. I might have been back in November, but I'm not now too precious about them not using influence, as long as they have the founders powers (Executive for RO's etc.). Someone else can take up the cause if they feel strongly either way with the influence usage.

Well, I think they should have reduced but present influence costs. Don't want them to be used for liberations. ;)
INTP, -4.25 Economic Left/Right, -4.1 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian, tastes like chicken.
I do use NS stats, thank you very much.
Funny Quotes
Pie charts for industries
Request an Embassy

User avatar
Astrum Nigrum
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 22
Founded: Jul 23, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Astrum Nigrum » Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:25 pm

Flanderlion wrote:but I think I was meaning at the time that the Custodian was meant to be a way for Founderless regions to opt out of R/D

that's certainly something we could use. if the idea of the custodian can be implemented to fulfill that purpose (using influence for various actions shouldn't be a problem in most cases) i'm all for it.
Last edited by Astrum Nigrum on Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Flanderlion
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1416
Founded: Nov 25, 2013
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Flanderlion » Sat Mar 12, 2016 11:05 pm

Astrum Nigrum wrote:
Flanderlion wrote:but I think I was meaning at the time that the Custodian was meant to be a way for Founderless regions to opt out of R/D

that's certainly something we could use. if the idea of the custodian can be implemented to fulfill that purpose (using influence for various actions shouldn't be a problem in most cases) i'm all for it.

Just looking at the number of founderless regions, there isn't a great supply of them atm. There is a grand total of 10 with over 100 nations in them (excluding GCRs), so the whole Custodian thing needs to be a little harder than getting a liberation etc. done, otherwise the supply of founderless regions would dry up rather quickly. As well as getting a super-majority, perhaps having to be delegate for X amount of time both at the time of nomination, and the time of acceptance, so they'd have to hold their delegacy for one more week or so while every raider and his cousin tries to knock them off the perch (possibly having to lose password privileges as well at the time, but that might be a little too extreme). Alternately the expiration thing of Custodian could work, but that would be annoying both having to redraft to renew Custodianship, and having to revote on it.
As always, I'm representing myself as a citizen, rather than as part of the Government, if I am at the time.

User avatar
Flying Circus 6
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 10
Founded: Feb 22, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Flying Circus 6 » Thu Apr 07, 2016 6:48 am

I do not agree with this proposal.

I think that the 'messy refoundings' are a part of Gameplay, and help reinforce the sense of urgency that occurs.

If this is inevitably going to become a feature, I suggest that a nation can only be a custodian once per region, and to have a feature which detects multiple puppets being used to abuse the custodian feature via IP.

User avatar
Zacherie
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 138
Founded: Apr 29, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Zacherie » Thu Apr 07, 2016 10:04 am

I think that the custodian role should only be valid for a weekat most[b/], and a region should not have the ability to have multiple custodians. With ROs, no established region [b]needs a custodian. Custodians are the equivalent of WA delegates that can be voted in practically risk free. Any region that fears raiding can elect a WA delegate with BC with the help of defenders, and will have the equivalent.

The custodian should not be an 'aegis' for regions to fall back on. The custodian nation should have to fill 2 requirements to prevent it being abused. The custodian nation should have to be in the WA, and have to be in the region it's being targeted with. With these two requirements, it will prevent custodian proposals from being thrown around willy nilly. Once custodian passes, the nation should be unable to leave the region without being ejected by a WA delegate or RO (My reasons for this will be explained after)

With this suggestion, custodians should have the same influence costs as RO, for the reason that, with all the tools regions have now, and that delegate elect is so hilariously in favor of a defending force, there is absolutely no reason that any region needs a security council ordained WA Delegate to protect their region.

This also prevents custodian proposals from being a ridiculously powerful tool for defenders and raiders, who would be able to make a sleeper into a custodian, allowing them to ban practically any opposing force risk free, regardless of whether they are in the region or not. And given that I can count the number of raider-favoring liberations on one hand, I think it's pretty clear which side that advantage would end up being used by.

When Delegate elect comes through, custodians should lose their power for the same reasons posted in the other thread. A custodian would be able to singlehandedly force delegate-elect to take place, then have free reign to ban one side's support while the other side piles in.

For the other seemingly 'random' additions (I.E being unable to leave the region) the purpose of that is to give it more interesting uses, and give raiders a reason to try pass the proposal. Raiders could start a mock-occupation on one target to bait defenders into using custodian, and once it's passed, go after their real target, knowing that they've reduced defending forces by 1 for a week.

TL;DR I think that this proposal is useless because ROs exist, but at the very least it could be made entertaining
Advocate of 20XX, Formerly Aurum Rider.
"I will be damned if I let some redtext and a WA ban ruin my game."
Frisbeeteria wrote:This is spam hackery.

Aurum Rider wrote:The year is 20xx, everyone has access to a raiding tool that can give them update times accurate within 10 seconds

User avatar
Evil Wolf
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1983
Founded: Apr 28, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Evil Wolf » Fri Apr 08, 2016 4:31 am

Personally, I view this as having the exact same flaws as the now on hold (and hopefully soon canceled) Reformation Proposals. In fact its practically is a Reformation Proposal just presented in a new wrapper.

This is nothing more than yet another proposed InstaWin (™) button which can only be used by one side, Defenders. It completely negates troop numbers, strategy, and politics to hand this InstaWin (™) to the Defender chosen Custodian and is on par with God-Modding. This proposal somehow manages to actually be worse than Reformation Proposals because at least with them Raiders don't instantly lose the second the proposal goes into effect.

Like Reformation Proposals, this also discourages Raiders from wanting to hold regions. Who is going to want to invest time and troops into a region just to watch their hard won control given away by the Security Council to a Defender of their choosing? Not I, that's for sure.
Last edited by Evil Wolf on Fri Apr 08, 2016 4:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
It's ok! You can trust me! I've been Commended!

Kryozerkia wrote:In the good old days raiding was illegal
Crazy Girl wrote:Invading was never illegal
[violet] wrote:There is supposed to be an invasion game.

Mallorea and Riva should be a Game Moderator Game Administrator.

User avatar
The Stalker
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1053
Founded: Jan 04, 2012
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Stalker » Thu Apr 14, 2016 1:59 pm

Look I don't think anyone wants some insta-win that would ruin the R/D game.

But I think most can agree, regions shouldn't be forced to founderless forever. As i've suggested in my post from nearly a year ago, I think having only regions that have been founderless for a few years, 5 or more, heck even 10 years, could qualify for this, that would greatly reduce it from being overused.

Hell has paid it's due, founcerless since 2003, endured dozens of raids. Now basically closed to the public till this change is implemented.
The Mad King of Hell
I am the "who" when you call, "Who's there?"
Hell's Bells: Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.
This isn't Wall Street, this is Hell. We have a little something called integrity.

User avatar
Zacherie
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 138
Founded: Apr 29, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Zacherie » Thu Apr 21, 2016 11:28 am

Except the majority of defenders, every roleplayer, and a lrage number of natives. Also known as the people that decide what passes in the security coucil?
Advocate of 20XX, Formerly Aurum Rider.
"I will be damned if I let some redtext and a WA ban ruin my game."
Frisbeeteria wrote:This is spam hackery.

Aurum Rider wrote:The year is 20xx, everyone has access to a raiding tool that can give them update times accurate within 10 seconds

User avatar
The Stalker
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1053
Founded: Jan 04, 2012
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Stalker » Thu Nov 24, 2016 11:09 pm

Been over half year since I posted last, just thought i'd poke the bear a little. Can we please get this into the game?

#Hellclosedforever
The Mad King of Hell
I am the "who" when you call, "Who's there?"
Hell's Bells: Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.
This isn't Wall Street, this is Hell. We have a little something called integrity.

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18124
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Sat Nov 26, 2016 8:44 am

The Stalker wrote:just thought i'd poke the bear a little.

"Oi!"
>:(
Last edited by Bears Armed on Sat Nov 26, 2016 8:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Flanderlion
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1416
Founded: Nov 25, 2013
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Flanderlion » Sat Nov 26, 2016 8:52 am

So if raiders attacked a region, the SC wouldn't need to propose a liberation, or need to worry about co-coordinating with defenders etc. - they'd just need to draft a resolution and the region would be saved, and another founderless region would be gone from the game. There are only a few big important founderless regions in the game, and these proposals seem like they'd be used on the large famous founderless regions primarily. Obviously for the natives of those regions they want this change to go ahead, but for gameplay I'm not convinced this would be a positive change. Is a game over situation, and those aren't good.
As always, I'm representing myself as a citizen, rather than as part of the Government, if I am at the time.

Previous

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Technical

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads