Founder Succession: A Better Solution [GP/RP Proposal]

[JURISDICTIONS]

Founder Succession
A Better Solution
Updated 3.0
OP LAST UPDATE: 7.10.14

First and foremost, regions depend on the founder to do many things. Many such regions that rely on a founder will rarely live beyond a founder's departure. Yes, there are exceptions. There are regions that have proven their worth without a founder. However, it is my first and foremost concern that we retain the communities here on NS. Providing a way for regional founders to pass on the torch of leadership would be a step in the right direction.

Further, all of this trouble between the Raiding/Defending community versus the Role Playing community sounds like it needs a better solution. I think that some of it has to do with Foundered regions losing a founder. I think some of it has to to with the fact that RP regions do need protection, but RL kind of steps in the way of our current Opt-out model of having a founder, if somehow the founder goes CTE.

This revamped proposal, hopefully, will be a better compromise.

[THE SUCCESSION SYSTEM]

1. A selection named "Resign as Founder", when selected, would provide for change in the foundership between the current founder and a selected nation.
2. It takes an active foundership to implement change.
3. A CTE founder would not provide for a successor.
4. All founders have the ability to choose a successor.
5. The successor, upon appointment, will become a "Successive Founder". (name change to denote non-original status)
6. The original/previous founder cannot become founder again, unless chosen as a successor.
7. Founders must remain 'alive' as a founder for at least three (3) months before gaining the option to have a founder succession system.
8. Successive Founders must remain 'alive' as the new founder for at least six (6) months before gaining the option to renew the succession system.
9. The current founder when declaring resignation will force a change of succession to the appointed nation in seven (7) days. During this time the WA Delegate will be an executive authority until the time has expired, and the new successive founder is fully installed.
10. All other current mechanics for founders remain in effect, excepting the above.
11. This proposal is not retroactive, and should be dealt with via the mechanics proposed in the R/D summit, such as WA Custodians, and regional officers.

[CHOOSING A SUCCESSOR]

1. To choose a successor, it would not be unlike the embassy request feature, where the founder sends a request to be accepted or rejected. A rejection, will not produce a successor, and the founder may try a different nation.
2. The installation of a successor takes seven (7) days (per above).
3. The appointment will be showed on the regional page.
4. Should a founder CTE before the Successor is installed, the region becomes founderless, and the WA Delegate will retain executive power.

[POSSIBLE EFFECTS]

1. It removes the need for re-founding, while still keeping the element of insecurity.
2. It may spur regional politics. (i.e. elections for a new founder, upon current founder letting the region know of retirement)
3. Allows for communities to maintain activity after the original founder has decided to move on to other things, such as real-life. (Regions have a higher community building success rates when a founder is present and active.)
4. When used, it removes the possibility of losing a founder who the region depends upon, and keeps the natural "opt-out" of R/D.
   

   Point 4 explained: Under current mechanics, time and time again, raiders have said that the best protection against a raid is to have an active founder. -- Why don't we try out their advice? Clearly, they do not object to the idea. -- Raids rarely occur when an active founder is present. Therefore, this proposal reinforces that security by allowing a nation who is willing (and active) to be founder (by appointment to the foundership by the previous founder). Founders (and thusly regions) who don't remain that active will be hard pressed to even have the ability to choose a founder resignation.
   
   This will not hurt the R/D game, because all regions that will have a founder will simply continue to have a founder. Further, founder change requires the WA Delegate to be unsecured for a week. We know raiders are not complaining about the current pickings of targets. Also remember, this is not retroactive, and it (1) will not give current founderless regions a new founder, (2) applies to new regions only. Founderless regions (and those created before implementation) will have to ask the WA Security Council for a Custodian and/or use regional officers.

5. If used by the founder, it reduces the possibility of newer non-founder regions to exist. Although, if the successive founder happens to be no good, the region can become founderless again.
6. All sides of the game can use it to their advantage, Raiders, Defenders, Non-R/D.
   

   Point 6 explained: If a founder chooses a rouge successor, there is possibility of total region destruction.

7. It removes the sticky political nature of trying to decide a new founder for a region, via World Assembly. Which is not really fair to those who do not participate there (this doesn't apply to custodians, since they would not be founders).

[LIMITATIONS]

1. The proposal is not retroactive. e.g. current founderless regions cannot gain a founder through this method, only new regions would be affected.
2. This does not allow for a direct chain of succession. The founder must exist within the world for three months as a founder before being given the option to choose a successor. If a founder CTE before the three month mark, the region will become founderless.
3. It does not rule out the WA Custodian idea. There will still be plenty of founderless regions in the game thanks to the possibility of CTE during the three/six month wait period.
4. It doesn't rule out the Regional Officers idea either, since the founder can choose whomever they would like to be the next founder.

[TOO LONG; DIDN'T READ]

1. Original Founders may only gain the option to resign and then choose an heir after 3 months. "Successive Founders" must wait 6 months before the option to resign and replace is available again. If the region or founder CTEs, the region is no longer eligible for this option. Thus, only Active Founders are rewarded. This is not a contingency plan for CTE.
2. It takes 7 days for the transfer from the Original Founder to the Successive Founder, during which, the WAD is the Executive of the region. Known as Sede Vacante.

[SUGGESTIONS]

• "Successive Founders" must have WAD approval before appointing another "Successive Founder".
• The feature could have a limited number of uses. This could be a One-Shot or Two-Shot option.

Can you give your opinions? Please, stay on topic to this proposal, this is not a "my-game-is-better-than-your-game" thread. Thanks.

- Juris

[Bears Armed]

Supported, as on the previous occasions when such a possibility has been suggested.

[Rephesus]

I support this among other suggestions as well. This will definitely help keep regions alive when their founder CTE.

[Esternial]

For everyone's information, this issue has been raised here as well.

This post.

[Maltropia]

I support this idea wholeheartedly.

[Rephesus]

Could the implementation of regional officers also be incorporated with this idea?

[JURISDICTIONS]

Could the implementation of regional officers also be incorporated with this idea?

I'm sure it could. Since the Founder could pick whoever he wants, he could simply pick a regional officer to take over after he CTE's.

[Lun Noir]

A couple of thoughts:

The lifespan of a region, particularly of successful regions, will often end up out-living the participation of the founder. This is true the longer the region has been around. However, I see no reason to punish a region as a whole for when their founder inevitably moves on. It would be a great relief to founders to be able to pass the torch on to someone else when their interest waned, but there was still a thriving community present. There are a great number of reasons why a founder may move on, and they should be able to do so without having the singular, unmovable burden of maintaining the region if someone else is willing to take it over.

This would not, itself, do anything to restrict R/D Gameplay from occurring. Founderless regions would still certainly exist, and more would continue to crop up. Perhaps even assigning an influence cost with specifying a region's successor would show a significant investment of time from the original founder. All this would do is allow a region's effective lifespan to be tied more to the life of its community rather than solely to the life of the founder.

Thank you for putting forth this suggestion, JURISDICTIONS. I hope that the NS community and the site staff may acknowledge that regions should be able to thrive beyond the duration of their founder's participation.

[Cerian Quilor]

Would be quite useful. I support this.

Its somewhat morbid, but I have wondered if I were to suddenly die (say in a car crash) leaving my region Founderless once the nation CTE'd and I couldn't pass the password on to the Heir Apparent in Kantrias (who would at least be able to assume all the legal functions of King on the forums once it was clear I was well and truly gone and not just on an unannounced LoA or something. The best plan I've come up with is what has been nicknamed 'google death' (that is, getting gmail to send a sort of dead drop e-mail if you don't log in after six months), but that's still the better part of half a year where I'd leave my region founderless.

So I can very much stand behind this idea.

[Crystal Spires]

Would be quite useful. I support this.

Its somewhat morbid, but I have wondered if I were to suddenly die (say in a car crash) leaving my region Founderless once the nation CTE'd and I couldn't pass the password on to the Heir Apparent in Kantrias (who would at least be able to assume all the legal functions of King on the forums once it was clear I was well and truly gone and not just on an unannounced LoA or something. The best plan I've come up with is what has been nicknamed 'google death' (that is, getting gmail to send a sort of dead drop e-mail if you don't log in after six months), but that's still the better part of half a year where I'd leave my region founderless.

So I can very much stand behind this idea.

Not too morbid. It's a sad reality. Libertarian Governance, and Grossprussia are both dead and were killed in accidents. If they were founders not only would a region have to deal with the resulting grief of losing a friend, but they'd also have raiders who don't respect their existing personal boundaries and there are reasons some nations continue to have attachment to founderless RP regions. You should all think of that. Other than that I support a RP regional exemption enforced by the mentors.

[Lun Noir]

I do not think RP regions should be considered exempt to anything. It is all far too subjective, and would require an unfair level of assessment and intervention from site staff.

Being able to adequately maintain an active founder has been touted again and again as the way to keep a region secure. However, no matter how much a region is thriving, they currently have no reasonable solution if their founder decides to leave NS. Allowing a founder to act responsibly in passing these duties on is a good and fair way to allow active regions to continue to thrive.

[Tim-Opolis]

I basically agree with Cerian.

[Unibot III]

An idea that will allow invaders to keep colonies forever - think Greece or Concosia. It would forever be under Persian rule with "Founder Succession". A "game-over" situation. That would be unfortunate and thus I'm against this idea.

[Lun Noir]

An idea that will allow invaders to keep colonies forever - think Greece or Concosia. It would forever be under Persian rule with "Founder Succession". A "game-over" situation. That would be unfortunate and thus I'm against this idea.

I don't understand your objection, Unibot. Invaders, like anyone else, could only 'keep a region' if they founded it in the first place, and passed foundership down as the first founder leaves. If you are referring to regions that invaders have seized and then re-founded, themselves... well, this would protect against that happening in the first place. You are correct that it would not retroactively invalidate already-occupied 'colonies'.

However, those regions are already captured. It is already "game over" for them. I am interested in seeing a method by which current foundered regions may continue to benefit from having a founder after the region outlives the participation of their founder.

[Esternial]

An idea that will allow invaders to keep colonies forever - think Greece or Concosia. It would forever be under Persian rule with "Founder Succession". A "game-over" situation. That would be unfortunate and thus I'm against this idea.

Founder =/= Elected delegate.

[Cerian Quilor]

An idea that will allow invaders to keep colonies forever - think Greece or Concosia. It would forever be under Persian rule with "Founder Succession". A "game-over" situation. That would be unfortunate and thus I'm against this idea.

Founder =/= Elected delegate.

That Persianish group refounded Greece, and periodically let the founder CTE to let the natives hopes up.

@Unibot: You're really going to let Greece and Concosia, only one of whom even had a community left at the time of the refound (might even be zero, I don't honestly know when it comes to Greece) stop you from supporting what could protect dozens, if not hundreds of native communities far into the future.

Alright, show's over. Unibot can stop pretending. He wants R/D to stay, and he wants raiders to have as many targets as possible.

*slow clap*

[Esternial]

Founder =/= Elected delegate.

That Persianish group refounded Greece, and periodically let the founder CTE to let the natives hopes up.

@Unibot: You're really going to let Greece and Concosia, only one of whom even had a community left at the time of the refound (might even be zero, I don't honestly know when it comes to Greece) stop you from supporting what could protect dozens, if not hundreds of native communities far into the future.

Alright, show's over. Unibot can stop pretending. He wants R/D to stay, and he wants raiders to have as many targets as possible.

*slow clap*

So what if he does? Many people play online games so they can enjoy playing the "hero" that saves the day.

Regardless, this isn't about Unibot. It's about the proposal. Best leave out the personal attacks/accusations.

[Cerian Quilor]

I think its fine. But then Unibot should admit it. I can't stand disingenousness of any kind, especially not from people who claim the moral high ground, like Unibot does in every post he makes.

[Euroslavia]

I think its fine. But then Unibot should admit it. I can't stand disingenousness of any kind, especially not from people who claim the moral high ground, like Unibot does in every post he makes.

This thread isn't about Unibot. Knock it off.

[Unibot III]

Founder =/= Elected delegate.

That Persianish group refounded Greece, and periodically let the founder CTE to let the natives hopes up.

@Unibot: You're really going to let Greece and Concosia, only one of whom even had a community left at the time of the refound (might even be zero, I don't honestly know when it comes to Greece) stop you from supporting what could protect dozens, if not hundreds of native communities far into the future.

Alright, show's over. Unibot can stop pretending. He wants R/D to stay, and he wants raiders to have as many targets as possible.

*slow clap*

Or not?

I don't want raiders to have "as many targets as possible" and I don't want invaders to be able to keep their colonies forever without at least some effort.

[JURISDICTIONS]

Uni, you do realise that

1. The regions that you have identified, have already been refounded, and under control of a founder. How could you 'save' them? There is no way to save them now, or in the future, because of the vigilance of that new founder.
2. Each time a new founder is given authority, they must remain 'alive' for at least six months to again appoint a new successor. If a founder CTE's in that time before being allowed to designate a successor, the region would become founderless. So, remember, its not exactly a direct chain.
3. This proposal should never be seen as retroactive. Those regions that are already founderless clearly would not benefit from this proposal, and that should be where the " WASC 'Custodianship' " proposal comes into play.

I will update the OP with some of the things mentioned here.

[Arumdaum]

An idea that will allow invaders to keep colonies forever - think Greece or Concosia. It would forever be under Persian rule with "Founder Succession". A "game-over" situation. That would be unfortunate and thus I'm against this idea.

If they've already refounded Greece and only pretend to have it be inactive, isn't it already game over for Greece?

[Kogvuron II]

I support this proposal. However, one question that should be considered is whether founders who are DEATed should still remain eligible for succession. I'm inclined to say no

[Rephesus]

I support this proposal. However, one question that should be considered is whether founders who are DEATed should still remain eligible for succession. I'm inclined to say no

I don't see why not. DEAT players aren't drug lords, it's not as if their successor is trying to stage an NS coup or something.

I do however agree that DOS nations shouldn't be succeeded by their puppets simply because they shouldn't have any existing puppets in the first place.

[SquareDisc City]

1. All founders have the ability to choose a successor.
2. The successor, upon CTE of the original founder, will become a "Successive Founder". (name change to denote non-original status)
3. The original/previous founder cannot become founder again, unless chosen as a successor.
4. All other current mechanics for founders remain in effect, excepting the above.
5. Founders must remain 'alive' for at least six (6) months before gaining this option.

I recommend revising item 3. Even with a Successor in place, it would be rather annoying for a Founder to lose their powers just because of an oversight or unforseen situation causing them to CTE.

Notwithstanding that, I back the proposal.