New WA Concept to solve arising Problems

[Unibot]

I came up with this idea in a early thread, but it was unrelated - so I'm bringing the discussion over to here.

One of the biggest problems of the SC's newest powers or any of the categories being suggested for the future is that the Founder's powers would have to be overlooked, or the legislation's power has to be limited to let Founder's roam free. This is because the Founder is outside of the realm of the WA, and for the purposes of this discussion, "owns" the region. It would be metagaming for the WA to claim it had more power over a region than the founder. Unless it did.

I came up with the idea for a safety net for regions, as currently, regions are being raided and refounded so their invaders can retain their authority over their region forever as founder-nazis (for lack of a better phrase). In my idea for the WA, Founders could "enlist" their region with the WA. It would be simple mechanism, a button on the WA page, Regional Controls or something.

The Benefits : A "WA Region" would have a little pretty WA logo, and possibly a multi-weighted vote for the Founder that rivals the Delegates'. Also, and more importantly, If a "WA Region" is refounded, it remains a WA Region forever.

This would allow for two possible new categories, one, a proposal that would block a Founder's access to the regional control of a certain WA Region (to combat nefarious refounding and evil dictator founders), and a second proposal category, which would be a formal resignation from the WA for regions.

I figure it would be seldom to find an circumstance where a region is refounded, and required to be a non-WA region, with reasons that aren't nefarious. So resignation proposals hopefully wouldn't fill the queue.


______________

Thanks for reading, please comment...
Unibot

[Unibot]

Bah. Ideas...

[Ardchoille]

You're not by any chance a major shareholder in a pharmaceutical firm? Because the headaches the existing SC concepts are causing should have already caused a perceptible surge in their profits, and adding this is just being greedy.

(Note: that was a whine, not a comment.)

[Unibot]

I don't know Ard, I think it would help solve some of the ethical problems of the WA controlling Founders - without the headache (well maybe for the poor coder(s) ).

[The Sedge]

I guess one major flaw I can see is that you say a WA region remains one after being re-founded. Well that assumes that its the natives/some invaders who re-found a region straight away, rather than the region dying off, and then months later another one with the same name is founded by entirely different people. I don't think this suggestion is something I see as benefiting the game.

[Unibot]

Well that's why I suggested a Resignation proposal. But I suppose a time limit could be used too, like let's say four weeks after a region dies its officially resigned from the WA.

[Sirocco]

Founders aren't affected by anything the WA does.

[Unibot]

I know Sirocco. But they could be.

Essentially, signing up with the WA would be like a deal with pros and cons for a Founder. The pros would be more power in the WA, and a failsafe for the region if it gets invaded and refounded. The downside is the Founder's powers could be at jeopardy if he's bad enough to attract the attention of the WA.