A Problem with Liberations

[Pythagosaurus]

Maybe the RP community should just take up residence in the warzones. 8)

[[violet]]

Wow, I go away for a day and miss all the action. Sorry Haven!

I think I'll do a FAQ rather than respond to individual posts because there are so many of them.

This thread has raised a lot of extremely complex, perennial issues, so if you want to discuss any of the points below that do NOT relate directly to Haven--e.g. whether we should ban invasions, how reFoundings could work, etc--please, please start a new thread for that. Because those debates get unwieldy enough even when they're on-topic. I'm addressing them here to summarize the admin position, but don't want to blow the thread even more off-course.

Argument: RP players should not have to deal with Gameplay.

We do aim to ensure that players who want to completely isolate themselves from the I/D game can do so. That is part of the NS philosophy. The chief tool we give players in this regard is Founders: a region with an active Founder is essentially immune to invasion. We also provide regional passwords and the ability for Delegates & Founders to eject and ban residents.

Complete isolation is not possible, though, since all regions have their feet in Gameplay (even if their heads are elsewhere). Regions are defined and governed by Gameplay rules. All this is very low-level and not at all central to why RP regions exist, of course, but you enter Gameplay the second you create a nation.

Thus, while we support the right of communities to isolate themselves, we cannot always allow them to do so in the exact manner they want, because their link with Gameplay is inextricable.

Argument: RP players should not have to deal with the WA.

I felt this was worth breaking out because it's even more defensible than the above: there's really no reason why an RP region with no WA members should have to care about WA proposals. Also, Gameplay and the WA are two very different communities, which you forget at your peril! We support this notion via Founders.

Argument: WA Liberation proposals force RP regions to deal with Gameplay and the WA.

If true, this is non-ideal, as per the above. I think it's a little true.

First, it's true only for RP regions who have not exercised the main opt-out tool we provide: Foundership. A Liberation resolution cannot override a Founder.

Second, an RP region is not affected at all by a Liberation proposal unless it passes as a resolution. At that point, other nations would be able to enter. (Although not do very much.) The proposal itself, though, even if it reaches the floor, does not change anything about Haven.

Of course, the idea of a Liberation proposal aimed at your region is alarming. (Particularly when it seems well-supported at the proposal stage.) But I think it's important to note that Haven has not been forced to deal with Gameplay yet. That would happen only if the resolution passed.

At this point, Haven does not need to do terribly much. A prominent resident should probably speak against it in the WA forum, but I suspect that's all that's required to shoot it down. In fact, I think that if Haven had completely ignored this proposal, Defenders and the WA community would have taken care of it.

Thus, while the proposal is of interest to Haven, it has not actually touched it.

Argument: This is an abuse of the Liberation feature

I agree in the sense that the liberation is trying to be sneaky, painting Haven as something it is not.

Argument: This is an unforeseen bug and should be fixed by admin.

The possibility of invaders doing precisely this was discussed in depth (in this forum) before the introduction of Liberations. It is certainly not a surprise!

Argument: Liberations should not be allowed against RP regions.

In principle, I agree. The question is how you enforce this. It is currently enforced by members of the WA: that is, the WA has the responsibility of blocking malicious attempts at Liberation. Personally I suspect they'll do a pretty good job of it, although we shall see.

The idea that moderators or admin should enforce this is easier said than done! It is essentially the same idea as that moderators should decide which invasions are legal. We tried that and it didn't work out so well (see below).

Argument: The price of potentially forcing RP regions to deal with Gameplay is not worth the benefit of the Liberation feature.

I agree that a passed Liberation of Haven would be an undesirable outcome. If there were a solution that delivered the benefits of the Liberation feature without the risk to RP regions, I'd endorse it. (If you want to suggest one, please start a new thread.)The current Liberation feature solved a major Gameplay problem: that of passwords being used offensively by invaders as a game-over move. And regions most at risk were those like Haven: large, isolationist communities using a password with no Founder. That is, prior to Liberations, Haven ran the risk of being seized by raiders who sniffed out the password and losing the region forever.

I do agree that Haven has been forced to pay a price for the Liberation feature--namely, that it is now worried about what might happen should the proposal pass, and feels compelled to campaign against it, getting involved in an area of NS it wants nothing to do with.

However, I believe it's a fairly small price (at least at this stage), and it's a great improvement on the price it might have paid had we not introduced Liberations.

Argument: Invasions should be banned.

We support the invasion game. Please note that an "invasion" means using the exact same endorsement and administration tools as everybody else. It's not like there is an "Invade!" button we could simply remove. Invaders act like ordinary players only more organized.

There are many things we could do to make invasions harder, many of which we have already done. But there are no simple answers. Two examples. One: passwords were introduced to help regions keep out invaders, and became used by successful invaders to keep out defenders. Two: moderators used to decide what was and wasn't allowed, judging who was "native;" the result was one side was always extremely dissatisfied with the moderator's judgement, and continual uncertainty as to what exactly was allowed.

Also, invasions do make NationStates a more interesting game. There is some evidence that the more conflict we allow, the more people play NationStates. I believe that outlawing invasions completely--if that were possible--would significantly reduce our numbers, which in turn would negatively affect every NS community.

Argument: Regions should be able to opt-out of the Invasion game.

Mostly agreed, as per the above. The tools we provide to support this are passwords, ejections, and bans, but above all Founders.

The devil is in the details here. A simple "opt-out" button would be used by every region in the game, even invaders, to protect their own regions. I have seen many, many proposals in this area over the years. (If you've got one, please start a new thread.) Most people want a solution that would be great for them but destroy the game for somebody else.

Argument: Large regions can't re-Found easily, so in a practical sense the Foundership tool isn't available to them.

True. However, I'm not sure it can nor should be otherwise. First, any system for appointing or electing a new Founder will be ripe with potential for abuse. Invaders already seize Delegacies; it would be horrible if they could seize Founderships.

Second, I think large, old regions are well-placed to defend against invaders even without Founders: their residents have large pools of Influence, they are well-known by Defenders, and they tend to have active Delegates.

Thirdly, I don't think it's a bad thing to return a region to Gameplay once the Founder dies off: this can signal that the original community is shrinking and could benefit from some new stimulation. Plenty of times this is not the case, though, and I don't think it applies to Haven. But it has renewed interest for others in the past.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Well, that's pretty much what I'd been trying to suggest, just above here, laid out rather succinctly - re-found if you must, put up a password. Not to talk over the boss, but I want to clarify a point from earlier:

Pyth, never once have I suggested you re-found a region for anyone, nor install founders for them. I said that given the statements in this thread by yourself and others on the system we have in place, that what few problems might arise could no doubt be dealt with by the Moderators easily enough. I did not state how I felt that should be accomplished. I can't read the future, I don't know what those individual incidents might involve, nor do I claim to know better than they on how to fix abuses. I just asked that they be prepared to deal with them appropriately.

Something to perhaps take note of is that the flippant and perhaps even insulting manner you've answered people here, or maybe not taken time to understand what was said, probably has not helped calm the situation here. When tempers are already running high, a bit of tact can go a long way.

Apologies to [violet] if this seemed rude coming in after your post, just felt it needed to be said.

[Pythagosaurus]

Pyth, never once have I suggested you re-found a region for anyone, nor install founders for them.

I never thought you did. I thought a mean old man wanted an admin to address your suggestion, and I was just pointing out that it had nothing to do with me. So this is now a misinterpretation of a misinterpretation. English sucks. 8)

[Cravan]

You see, I can understand exactly where you're coming from in that viewpoint, especially when considering how many separate viewpoints you're dealing with and trying to make happy. With such different demographics represented in the game, I can't imagine its ever very easy to come to a compromise.

With reference to the fact that founders are the ultimate trump card to prevent invasions: I can understand why this is the most attractive and practical way to negate the threat of an invasion, especially when considering the flaws in an "opt-out" system pointed out previously which could, in effect, help raiders more than anything. I will explain, though, why the average Havenic, including myself, is so averse to the idea of refounding:

In Haven's recent history, in terms of the delegate/gameplay aspect, Haven has faced more internal threats than external, namely because of the password protecting the region. In our isolation from a founder, a unique (strictly OOC) political system has developed within Haven: a level of democracy akin to that of ancient Athens, where 90% of our decisions are made by referendum, and the higher daily administrative functions such as managing the map are left to the delegate. There are no term limits on the delegate: rather his/her term runs out whenever Havenites grow dissatisfied with their delegate and demand a popular election, at which point the delegate is more or less forced to concede to public opinion. An election occurs, endorsements are transferred, and a new executive is elected. This development has not always existed, however.

Prior to the establishment of our current system, the delegateship was an autocracy limited only by gameplay limitations (namely, influence). "Benevolent" as he may have been, this delegate (names shall not be named) eventually became out of touch as Havenites further pushed for more referenda and autonomy in political decisions: such resulted in the overthrow of said delegate and implementation of the current system. No endorse can vouch for this, as he was ejected among a few others upon the attempted coup/exit of this past delegate (which had often been referenced in subsequent elections as a ceremonial kick, Munchy we miss you<3).

Apprehension towards a founder is thus justified by this turn of events, still relatively recent in memory for many of Haven's elder members: a founder's theoretically infinite power compared to that of a delegate whose position is directly responsible to the people is too ripe for abuse, and it is thought more likely that a Havenite may coup the system rather than an external threat invade the region and take the delegacy. If a Havenite were to coup the system, it would mean the absolute loss of the gameplay region completely. Any possible safeguards one can imagine are insufficient: a neutral puppet could be given the role, with a password shared amongst several members in addition to the delegate, but then the threat of coup expands even more as any one of those members could change the password at will. A delegate can refuse to transfer the password of the founder nation in the event of being voted out, thus resulting in the former delegate seizing absolute power over the region. Nothing can be done in response against someone with founder powers; the region would be lost forever until the perpetrator of the coup lost interest or was shunned by so much of the RP community that NS were made incredibly boring for him/her. If it were not for the limited nature of the delegate's administrative powers, the revolution which instituted the current system would have never happened.

So while refounding is the practical answer, it isn't practical to Havenites: Havenites are unwilling to sacrifice their political liberties for the sake of security.

[Topid]

And yet all of you ignored the idea that we bring up the optional founders thing again...

Lol not to butt in the convo but I want to respond to this comment two pages ago. I was told that is still on the to-do list, just given the TG re-ramp, SC/GA split, annexes and allllll that other stuff that is ahead of it on the list... We have a long wait.

[Kalibarr]

oh, I never really got a good answer on that, but I'll take your word for it.

I didn't know it was in the works, it looked abandoned.

[Kandarin]

A general summary of how things work in Haven

Haven is a special case in many ways, not least of which is the way in which it is one of the only (possibly the only) region in NS to make the password feature work for it. Another way in which it is extraordinary is the way in which Influence works in your favor here. If (by some horrible twist of fate) the resolution did pass and invaders somehow did sweep in in the night and take Haven, they'd have to linger in there for years, watching the borders and not invading anything else, just to make a dent in your trove of high-influence elder nations. Influence was meant to replace the prohibition on banning "natives" by instead increasing the difficulty of ejecting nations with "native" traits. This works very well for Haven to the point where I don't think you folks really could be successfully invaded.

Most regions that are potential targets for invasions don't have that. They're either small enough that invaders can mass quicker influence gain, or large enough (feeders) that any enforcement and control over who has Influence is problematic short of a monopoly on real influence gain by one bloc (which, the way Influence runs now, is unfortunately necessary in all feeders). Most regions are either very active but new or very idle with few WAs. Haven is a special case of a region of middling size full of nations that are both old and active, who frequent the WA as often as anyone (or more, if necessary). Again, all of this means that under the influence system, an invasion of it would go nowhere.

[Bavin]

A general summary of how things work in Haven

Haven is a special case in many ways, not least of which is the way in which it is one of the only (possibly the only) region in NS to make the password feature work for it. Another way in which it is extraordinary is the way in which Influence works in your favor here. If (by some horrible twist of fate) the resolution did pass and invaders somehow did sweep in in the night and take Haven, they'd have to linger in there for years, watching the borders and not invading anything else, just to make a dent in your trove of high-influence elder nations. Influence was meant to replace the prohibition on banning "natives" by instead increasing the difficulty of ejecting nations with "native" traits. This works very well for Haven to the point where I don't think you folks really could be successfully invaded.

Most regions that are potential targets for invasions don't have that. They're either small enough that invaders can mass quicker influence gain, or large enough (feeders) that any enforcement and control over who has Influence is problematic short of a monopoly on real influence gain by one bloc (which, the way Influence runs now, is unfortunately necessary in all feeders). Most regions are either very active but new or very idle with few WAs. Haven is a special case of a region of middling size full of nations that are both old and active, who frequent the WA as often as anyone (or more, if necessary). Again, all of this means that under the influence system, an invasion of it would go nowhere.

Not to mention the proposer just said that this proposal is simply aimed at proving a point about liberations, which seems to have failed in light of [violet]'s recent post.

[Bears Armed]

because it would kill the R/D gameplay

Again, there are people who want to be left alone here and not play in the R/D game. People with founders have a nice exit out of that game as they can never be harmed by an invasion. Those of us in founderless regions, whether it's because there are too many people to coordinate an exit strategy, have too much history backed up on the RMB, or are fearful that some other party with a grudge will intervene, are really unable to refound their regions. This would solve that instantly. If we could easily do it, we'd do it. So what's the difference if we just get founders and bypass all that painful work?

Sooooooo you are still arguing to end raiding. Because then who will raiders raid? No one is left if every region has a founder. Bye-bye huge chunk of NS!

They could agree to let all of their own regions' Founders CTE, and then raid each other... which would take more skill, and thus possibly be more interesting than raiding small regions whose inhabitants might not even know that such operations were possible: No?
Of course, if they insist that they absolutely must have a suppply of 'innocent' victims to raid instead -- because it's no fun for the raiders if they don't upset anybody by their actions -- then wouldn't that settle the argument about whether their activities constitute a form of 'trolling' and therefore should be banned once-&-for-all?

My idea is this. Make 80% of all regions WA Regions and the other 20% non WA Regions. Each Regions gets to decide and then, if more than 20% don't want to be a member, you do a lottery thing. That way, a nation can decide to join a WA Region if they want to be a member of the WA and if they don't, they join a non WA Region. If they join a WA Region, they automatically apply for WA Member status.

That would mess up some RP activities: A number of us have good reasons for keeping our WA nation & one or more "related" non-WA nations in the same region as each other... For example, Bears Armed isn't a member of the WA itself -- because certain resolutions that have been passed couldn't be implemented here/there without violating the country's constitution -- but maintains a presence within that organisation through the Bears Armed Mission, and there are several other "Ursine League" nations within the region too for intra-regional RP...

Of course, the idea of a Liberation proposal aimed at your region is alarming. (Particularly when it seems well-supported at the proposal stage.) But I think it's important to note that Haven has not been forced to deal with Gameplay yet. That would happen only if the resolution passed.

Some of Haven's members have, however, been forced to take time away from the RP that is their basic interest in this game in order to campaign against this proposal...

At this point, Haven does not need to do terribly much. A prominent resident should probably speak against it in the WA forum, but I suspect that's all that's required to shoot it down.

Do you realise how few of the WA nations' players -- even of the Delegates -- actually look at the WA forums?

Argument: Liberations should not be allowed against RP regions.

In principle, I agree. The question is how you enforce this. It is currently enforced by members of the WA: that is, the WA has the responsibility of blocking malicious attempts at Liberation. Personally I suspect they'll do a pretty good job of it, although we shall see.

The idea that moderators or admin should enforce this is easier said than done! It is essentially the same idea as that moderators should decide which invasions are legal. We tried that and it didn't work out so well (see below)

And the impossibility of sorting out legality in all cases means that you can't/won't do so even when the situation is as obvious as it was this time? Oh well...
Why not make simply add "Downright Lies" to the list of reasons for which proposals can get deleted by the Mods?

]Argument: Invasions should be banned.

We support the invasion game. Please note that an "invasion" means using the exact same endorsement and administration tools as everybody else. It's not like there is an "Invade!" button we could simply remove. Invaders act like ordinary players only more organized.

Well, if you classed gloating about victories -- by changing WFEs to that effect, or making lists of "conquered" regions, as 'Macedon' has done, for example -- as illegal for 'Griefing'/'Trolling' then that might discourage at least the worst of them a bit... No?

Also, invasions do make NationStates a more interesting game.

For the invaders & defenders, yes; and maybe for those of the Admins who seem to be looking in from outside rather than actually playing, too: Not, however, for the [many] inhabitants of invaded regions who have never been interested in that sort of activity...
You do know that Chinese allegedly used a phrase that's usually translated as "May you live in interesting time" as a curse, yes?

There is some evidence that the more conflict we allow, the more people play NationStates. I believe that outlawing invasions completely--if that were possible--would significantly reduce our numbers, which in turn would negatively affect every NS community.

There is also some evidence that the more conflict that occurs, the more people whose regions have been dragged into it against their wills leave NationStates... in which case the increased number odf players would presumably consist mainly of people who are interested in conflict: Carry that to its logical [extreme] conclusion and they end up outnumbering the innocent bystanders, there's nobody really left for them to raid -- because raider spokesmen keep saying that raiding is no fun if there aren't any such unwilling nations involved -- and then the WHOLE game collapses & is gone...

[Bluth Corporation]

A simple "opt-out" button would be used by every region in the game, even invaders, to protect their own regions.

This is why I proposed that an opt-out means you're also forbidden from raiding as well--so you're either in the game or you're not. Don't want to be raided? Fine, but that means you can't go on raids either. This really would make it obvious who is truly interested in playing the game and who just wants to be a bunch of jackasses spoiling others' fun.

[Scandavian States]

Argument: The price of potentially forcing RP regions to deal with Gameplay is not worth the benefit of the Liberation feature.

I agree that a passed Liberation of Haven would be an undesirable outcome. If there were a solution that delivered the benefits of the Liberation feature without the risk to RP regions, I'd endorse it. (If you want to suggest one, please start a new thread.)The current Liberation feature solved a major Gameplay problem: that of passwords being used offensively by invaders as a game-over move. And regions most at risk were those like Haven: large, isolationist communities using a password with no Founder. That is, prior to Liberations, Haven ran the risk of being seized by raiders who sniffed out the password and losing the region forever.

While theoretically true, there was never a threat of this where Haven was concerned. For one, to even get the password requires a long and drawn out application process with strict requirements for entry. Two, because part of the applications process is a history of well-done roleplays on the forums, no raider would have been granted entry given their stated disdain for RP. Three, guessing the password is basically impossible, as the passwords for Haven has always been in-jokes that only long time Havenites would understand.

Now, I understand that not all regions are so choosy and closeted, but if they had been password feature would have remained the ultimate firewall against raiders.

Argument: Large regions can't re-Found easily, so in a practical sense the Foundership tool isn't available to them.

True. However, I'm not sure it can nor should be otherwise. First, any system for appointing or electing a new Founder will be ripe with potential for abuse. Invaders already seize Delegacies; it would be horrible if they could seize Founderships.

I can't disagree with this. However, having a policy of rarely granting such requests for regions without founders and only granting them when it is agreed by the staff that the reasoning is sound wouldn't be so terrible. I imagine that if some guy came to you and requested Foundership for Region X, you could go into the regional history and see he's only been there for a short while and only after what appears to be a raid, you would sniff out the deceit and deny the request. However, I can't imagine you'd deny a region like Haven, knowing our history and processes as you do, such a request.

[Bryn Shander]

Argument: Large regions can't re-Found easily, so in a practical sense the Foundership tool isn't available to them.

True. However, I'm not sure it can nor should be otherwise. First, any system for appointing or electing a new Founder will be ripe with potential for abuse. Invaders already seize Delegacies; it would be horrible if they could seize Founderships.

I can't disagree with this. However, having a policy of rarely granting such requests for regions without founders and only granting them when it is agreed by the staff that the reasoning is sound wouldn't be so terrible. I imagine that if some guy came to you and requested Foundership for Region X, you could go into the regional history and see he's only been there for a short while and only after what appears to be a raid, you would sniff out the deceit and deny the request. However, I can't imagine you'd deny a region like Haven, knowing our history and processes as you do, such a request.

And in Haven's case, I have to again state that Scandavian States himself is the best and only candidate for an appointed foundership due to the fact that he's the only person still in the region that was there when Haven was founded. There is long documented history of this fact that cannot be disputed. As a result, most of the arguments against appointing founders, IE giving it to the wrong person or abuse, are not relevant.

[Martyrdoom]

Argument: Large regions can't re-Found easily, so in a practical sense the Foundership tool isn't available to them.

True. However, I'm not sure it can nor should be otherwise. First, any system for appointing or electing a new Founder will be ripe with potential for abuse. Invaders already seize Delegacies; it would be horrible if they could seize Founderships.

I can't disagree with this. However, having a policy of rarely granting such requests for regions without founders and only granting them when it is agreed by the staff that the reasoning is sound wouldn't be so terrible. I imagine that if some guy came to you and requested Foundership for Region X, you could go into the regional history and see he's only been there for a short while and only after what appears to be a raid, you would sniff out the deceit and deny the request. However, I can't imagine you'd deny a region like Haven, knowing our history and processes as you do, such a request.

And in Haven's case, I have to again state that Scandavian States himself is the best and only candidate for an appointed foundership due to the fact that he's the only person still in the region that was there when Haven was founded. There is long documented history of this fact that cannot be disputed. As a result, most of the arguments against appointing founders, IE giving it to the wrong person or abuse, are not relevant.

If you want a founder I think you are going to have to refound the region like everyone else has to.

More to the point, why should Haven have a founder appointed and not other founderless regions?

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Even more to point, if raiders can't get in (something that several members have repeated over and over), and liberation hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of going through for Haven (given the statements of others, repeated again) ...

Why should Haven get any special treatment? Sounds like you've got it covered just fine. My main concern was for precedents and principles across the board. Those concerns have been answered fair enough.

[Scandavian States]

More to the point, why should Haven have a founder appointed and not other founderless regions?

I'm not saying other regions shouldn't have founders appointed. I think the criteria need be inherently flexible, because it's always possible a region could have a perfectly valid reason for wanting such a thing that nobody had anticipated. OTOH, I think frivolous reasoning should be rejected out of hand.

[Scandavian States]

Why should Haven get any special treatment? Sounds like you've got it covered just fine. My main concern was for precedents and principles across the board. Those concerns have been answered fair enough.

Honestly? Were it up to me, I'd say every regions that wants a founder can have one, even at the risk of killing the I/D community. But, as the staff isn't willing to risk that, I think the criteria have to be far more strict. Obvious/known I/D regions should have such requests rejected out of hand. RP regions without a founder should be considered carefully.

And you're right, it's not going to pass. This time. What I'm most upset about is that the I/D community seems to think it's okay to break through the wall and ruin another sector's vision of NS. That's not right, and more to the point it is a fundamentally malicious and childish act which shouldn't be tolerated. All further work on improving NS should focus exhaustively on solving this problem, leaving no stone unturned and no cave unexplored.

[Martyrdoom]

More to the point, why should Haven have a founder appointed and not other founderless regions?

I'm not saying other regions shouldn't have founders appointed. I think the criteria need be inherently flexible, because it's always possible a region could have a perfectly valid reason for wanting such a thing that nobody had anticipated. OTOH, I think frivolous reasoning should be rejected out of hand.

Ah right. So all founderless regions should have a founder appointed? And this is to protect RP regions? Essentially, that would be entail destroying one type of game for the purposes of another.

Founders can already be appointed when refounding. And if a founder is going to cte or leave for whatever reason, surely a contingency can be put in place, i.e. the sharing of the founding nation's password when the time comes.

[Romanar]

While theoretically true, there was never a threat of this where Haven was concerned. For one, to even get the password requires a long and drawn out application process with strict requirements for entry. Two, because part of the applications process is a history of well-done roleplays on the forums, no raider would have been granted entry given their stated disdain for RP. Three, guessing the password is basically impossible, as the passwords for Haven has always been in-jokes that only long time Havenites would understand.

Now, I understand that not all regions are so choosy and closeted, but if they had been password feature would have remained the ultimate firewall against raiders.

If your process keeps out raiders, it would also keep out other people who would be potential assets to Haven. Obviously Haven has made it work somehow, but I'm seen many regions killed because nobody wanted to bother with passwords and the region never got new blood.

I can't disagree with this. However, having a policy of rarely granting such requests for regions without founders and only granting them when it is agreed by the staff that the reasoning is sound wouldn't be so terrible. I imagine that if some guy came to you and requested Foundership for Region X, you could go into the regional history and see he's only been there for a short while and only after what appears to be a raid, you would sniff out the deceit and deny the request. However, I can't imagine you'd deny a region like Haven, knowing our history and processes as you do, such a request.

In the case of Haven, there seems to be ONE logical choice for founder. That is rare. I know of several regions that have several potential choices. How would the Mods pick between them? And some newer regions that don't have any; their "old" members might have been there only slightly longer than the raider spy who slipped in, waiting for his chance to take over.

[Scandavian States]

So all founderless regions should have a founder appointed?

No. Regions who specifically go through the process of applying for a founder should have their cases heard. History, administration, threats of disruption, etc should naturally be considered. What the staff considers legitimate is entirely up to them.

And this is to protect RP regions?

No, this would be to protect regions who don't want to be involved in I/D activities, but those so involved in such activities should have any applications rejected out of hand so as to ensure no unfair advantage is obtained. Also, regions with no real history or purpose should, to my mind, have such applications rejected so as to encourage them to settle on something and organize themselves in order to build a more stable NS community.

[Kalibarr]

Everyone would want a founder if you could get one. It would be goodbye R/D.

[Bavin]

Everyone would want a founder if you could get one. It would be goodbye R/D.

And? If raiders still want to play, they can raid each other. Perfect solution, they get to raid, and no innocents get griefed.

[Scandavian States]

If your process keeps out raiders, it would also keep out other people who would be potential assets to Haven. Obviously Haven has made it work somehow, but I'm seen many regions killed because nobody wanted to bother with passwords and the region never got new blood.

It works for Haven for a couple reasons. One, we're organized; the original purpose of Haven was to act as an alliance-specific region and thus a password was necessary, as were the mechanisms to bring in new people. Two, the region is of some repute, in fact most prominent roleplayers have spent some time in Haven, so we constantly have new blood requesting admission; in fact, right now I believe we're considering two applicants for admission.

In the case of Haven, there seems to be ONE logical choice for founder. That is rare. I know of several regions that have several potential choices. How would the Mods pick between them? And some newer regions that don't have any; their "old" members might have been there only slightly longer than the raider spy who slipped in, waiting for his chance to take over.

Haven has a true democratic process, that's just how we decide things. I can't say what other regions should do, but I think our process works and I firmly believe it's a strong source of our continuing vitality.

[Scandavian States]

Everyone would want a founder if you could get one. It would be goodbye R/D.

Which is why I'm saying not everyone should get one. I/D regions should not get founders. New or unorganized regions should not get founders. Feeder regions obviously can't get founders. Regions organized as school activities, regions organized specifically as roleplaying regions, regions whose purpose is to participate in the World Assembly only, these are the regions who should receive founders and even then only when specifically requested and vetted.

[Kampfers]

Crave does a great job of describing the political situation of Haven. Within the region, there are many large egos and many people who have proven that they should not be entrusted with power. The current system we have is a direct result of that, where the residents can remove the leadership if it proves tyrannical. As a result, Haven does not want to refound, despite the benefits it would provide in keeping us safe. We simply have enough past experience that we do not want to entrust that sort of unlimited power to any single person.

And Bryn Shander has been gone from Haven from a longgggg time. And is very out of touch with Havenic politics. If there was a vote for who to refound Haven, Scand would probably place second to last on my list, only above Clandonia. But that's an argument for another time and place.

If your process keeps out raiders, it would also keep out other people who would be potential assets to Haven. Obviously Haven has made it work somehow, but I'm seen many regions killed because nobody wanted to bother with passwords and the region never got new blood.

You see, on the RP forums, Haven has something known as "name recognition". If you are an aspiring RPer, you want to move to Haven, because that is where the best of the best are (not taking anything away from the other great RPing regions, such as Gholgoth). This provides a steady stream of applicants, some of whom are accepted, and some of whom are denied. The fact that they are good RPers and have put time and effort into building up their nation means that they are more likely to continue RPing for a long time, as evidenced by the duration of most of the older nations in Haven. This continued lifespan of old RPers and the new ones that join means that Haven will always exist, as long as there are good RPers coming out of the woodwork of II.