Hawking Regions

[Galiantus III]

In a recent discussion about adding new SC proposal categories, the topic of region hawking* came up.

Region hawking is a problem because it locks up possible region names from use by players who would put the region to use. A region is in use if it is home to a single player, if it houses a community, or if it is being used as puppet storage. A region is not in use if it does not serve one of these functions. Thus the offending players are those who control many regions (rather than few), and use none of them to build a community or to store groups of puppet nations. I know there are at least two players in existence who use this practice to maintain control of 100+ regions: (1)Macadon, which has maintained control of its share of regions for many years, (2) the Guardien Network, which is a few years younger than Macadon, and hawks many regions in the name of creating a secure environment - despite the fact that no one wants to be members of their regions.

This thread is intended as a place to produce and discuss solutions to this problem. Any and all ideas with the goal of limiting the affect of region hawks are in order here. But keep in mind that solutions should err on the side of not affecting regions that are part of a hawk's collection. Just because a region has 1 nation and has been that way for awhile is not an indication of egregious hawking, and a player who has founded three regions is not necessarily doing so for the sole purpose of collecting and letting them collect dust. The problem is players who found an extreme number of regions and hold on to them for multiple years.

So far, we have three possible ways to address the problem:

• Limit the number of regions one person can found
• Change rules for region CTE
• Conditionally allow regions of the same name to exist

Limit Founding

But not in a way that will affect most people. The annoying thing about region hawkers is not so much that they are off in their own region, isolated from the rest of the world, doing nothing but answering issues - if someone wants to do that, it's fine. The problem is region hawkers can hold onto dozens or more regions with names that lots of other people would want to use to found their own personal region. Most people don't found multiple regions, most who do end up abandoning the extra ones eventually, and everyone who doesn't is just a big annoyance to everyone else. How is this not considered multying?

Okay, I'm obviously exaggerating. But the idea is valid. I'm proposing a system which would treat individuals who found multiple regions in a "multy-lite" fashion. Using the same sort of mechanic as is used in the WA to detect multying, the game would limit how many regions one player can control, so that owners of one region will remain unaffected, but owners of many will be unable to maintain control over all of them. I can see two possible ways to do this:

E-Mail Verification at Founding
This is the simpler one to implement, but will require more strict punishments for controlling multiple founders. Creating a new region would be exactly like joining the WA. If you would have founded a region successfully, then the name of the region is reserved for you and you get a verification message in your email, which you have a week to use before you lose the reservation and someone else can found a region with that name if they desire. If your email address is already associated with a founding nation, then the system informs you of the problem, does not reserve the region name, and does not send an email.

A Validated Nation System
A few months ago we discussed separating regional and WA powers in this topic. The idea was to have "WA Members" and "Validated Nations" run as parallel systems within the two different domains of power. My proposal here is to partially implement "Validated Nations", only to limit the ability to found a region to validated nations. WA delegates would maintain power in the same way they do now. Resigning validation would render the founder nation non-executive in all founded regions, re-validating the founder nation would restore executive power.

The nice thing about this system is that one technically could create and hold multiple regions, but with one minor tweak to game-mechanics this would be extremely difficult; simply require that passworded regions contain a WA or Validated nation for the password to remain (excluding class regions, of course). Thus a person could hold on to two regions indefinitely, but no more.

Change CTE Rules
One way to make it really hard for an individual player to hold on to many regions indefinitely is to change the mechanics behind region CTE. Right now the only way a region can CTE is if it updates with no nations in it, but we need not leave it at that. Flanderlion already suggested a method which would check for WA presence, which while there are problems inherent to that, is in the ballpark of approaches I think could work.

Here are some conditions we could expand region CTE to (the exact numbers will need debate):

A region ceases to exist if all of the following happens:
1. The regional message board has not been used for 60 days(Spam is still prohibited). Nations in such a region get a CTE warning after 45 days.
2. No nation has answered or dismissed an issue for 30 days.
3. No WA nation has been in the region for 90 days.

Or if the following happens:
1. No nation is in the region.

... and none of the following applies:
1.The region is a Feeder, a Sinker, a Warzone or a class region.
2.The region contains 10 nations or more.
3.The region was founded within the past 6 months, and contains nations.

Nations in regions forcibly CTE'd by this "Eater of Worlds" mechanic would go to either TRR or one of the sinkers. Nations would still only CTE based on the current rules.

Private Resorts
One way region hawking could be made a non-issue entirely would be to create a mechanic that allows for the existence of multiple regions of the same name, but only if there isn't already a region of that name with more than 10 nations. If one region with a shared name ever exceeds 10 nations, then regions with duplicate names are now considered a "private resort" and may only ever contain up to 10 nations. However, if a founder or delegate chooses to they can change the name of their private resort, which will effectively create a new region of that name and move all the nations in the resort to the new region, copy the WFE, tags, etc. so it's like nothing happened.

I know admin don't like the idea already, for technical reasons, but please hear me out, because I have a technical solution to this:

Extend the URL for duplicate regions, so the site can differentiate between the two. Use a character which cannot be used in region names, such as ~,@,#,$,%,& followed by a number. As an example:

www.nationstates.net/region=testregion#2

The "#2" at the end would not be displayed anywhere on the site other than the URL of the region. The displayed name of the above region would still be "Testregion".

Code referring to regions in RMB posts, the forum, and telegrams (except recruitment telegrams) would change slightly:

Code: Select all

[region]Testregion[/region]

would be interpreted with the URL to the largest region with that name, at the time of the post. However, recruitment telegrams would interpret this as a URL to the region being advertised, if applicable.

Code: Select all

[region]Testregion#2[/region]

would be interpreted as the URL for the region with extension #2.

Code: Select all

[region]Testregion#[/region]

would get the URL for a region that was created before a duplicate region was created. That is, in the case that Testregion#2 has more nations than Testregion, this would be the way to refer to ]Testregion specifically.

So for the average player, the effect is that they can make a region of any name they want (within the rules, of course), provided that no region of that name already contains 10 or more nations.

Make Regions Multiplayer
This has less to do with stopping region hawking, and more to do with creating an engaging multiplayer game. I am putting this here mainly because it is related and works as a supporting topic. It is based on Aclion's comment about multiplayer games typically placing limits on faction creation.

The following rules would apply to region creation and region CTE:

Any nation could apply to found a region, and in the process reserve that region name. The application would time out 14 days after submission. Recruitment for the new potential region would happen before its actual creation. The expectant founder would need to gain commitment from other nations to move to the region upon creation, in order for the region to actually get founded. The founder would need the support of at least three different nations, whose combined population exceeds 1 billion. Alternatively, the founder could gain the support of two WA nations (or one, if the founder is in the WA). The new region would be created at the start of the update after meeting founding conditions, and the founder and supporting nations will be moved there. Class regions would come into existence the same way they do now.

Regions unable to maintain a population of at least four nations or at least one member in the WA would become in danger of CTE. At 14 days of sitting at size 3 or below, all nations in the region will receive a telegram informing them the region is going to be emptied and disbanded in another 14 days if they cannot return to sustainable conditions. After 28 days below sustainability, the region would CTE at update, and all its resident nations would be moved to TRR (or a new GCR specifically for nations kicked out of dead regions).

---

Like I said, the primary goal of this is to help concentrate players in regions where they can be a part of a community. Growing a new region is also a difficult endeavor, and a new player joining the game should be guided away from trying to do that first thing - they should go see what existing regions have to offer before that becomes an easily accessible option.

*Region hawking refers to refounding and simultaniously holding many regions while doing nothing with them.

[Mallorea and Riva]

So you want to introduce a game mechanic to make hawking a region impossible if you (the player) are already the founder for some other region. Have I got that more or less right?

[Galiantus III]

Not impossible, just difficult. It would be simplest tech-wise to make it outright impossible, though. The goal is for a system where you would have to do more than log in once every three weeks if you want to have multiple regions.

[Vincent Drake]

How would this account for nation-sharing? Founder nations are often shared in order to minimize CTE risk.

Email verification would not work for this the way it works for WA, unless there were a game rule change outright banning multiple regions. Without said change, you can just use multiple emails or the same email with punctuation and other tricks for one address to register as several.

The problems get even messier when the mods now have to deal with two single player enforcement systems. It's already potentially difficult, and in some cases, not even possible, to prove who is controlling a nation. You have the mobile IP issues, the shared external IP issues, anything that makes WA multiing detection an issue would apply here (bad pun not intentional, I swear!)

Most people don't found multiple regions, most who do end up abandoning the extra ones eventually, and everyone who doesn't is just a big annoyance to everyone else.

Do you have stats to back these assertions up? "Everyone" who holds multiple regions is an annoyance to "everyone" else? Not a great look in a game change pitch.

I also personally just don't like the idea. First-come, first-served is perfectly fair. Name is one of the least important aspects of a region, considering how people have built great communities with silly/gibberish names. If one has trouble attracting people to a region, it's likely not the name that is holding one back, but the methods one uses and the things the region offers.

[Flanderlion]

Region hawking I see as fine, as the regions can CTE and someone can use them. Nation name hawking I'm against, but that's not what this change would be about. It seems like it'd be a lot of work, and have a lot of issues, for something that isn't that terrible of a problem, there are a lot of names open to everyone.

I'd be alright with making regions CTE without any WA nations in them, or if the region hadn't had a WA in it for the last 28 days. That would mostly solve the 'issue' of region hawking.

[Aclion]

Just gonna throw out two thoughts.

1.MMOs that have player created factions will sometimes require more the one player to participate in faction creation, to make it harder for players to make vanity factions. Such a restriction could curb some of the more extreme examples of region hawking, where a player is simply collecting regions that people might want.

2. The biggest objection with region hawking is that players will sit on region names that other people want; either because they refer to things outside of nationstates or there used to be a region of that name. It makes sense to me that restrictions on region creation only apply to region names that have existed before, and not novel names; under the assumption that if a name was high value someone would have used it before.

Region hawking I see as fine, as the regions can CTE and someone can use them. Nation name hawking I'm against, but that's not what this change would be about. It seems like it'd be a lot of work, and have a lot of issues, for something that isn't that terrible of a problem, there are a lot of names open to everyone.

I'd be alright with making regions CTE without any WA nations in them, or if the region hadn't had a WA in it for the last 28 days. That would mostly solve the 'issue' of region hawking.

That would be a problem for regions that are anti WA

[Galiantus III]

How would this account for nation-sharing? Founder nations are often shared in order to minimize CTE risk.

This is a really good criticism I hadn't considered. I'd say that if a person has a region which is easily involving multiple players, then any detection of nation-sharing/multying should be ignored. The problem is people who hoard dead regions for years on end, not people trying to create secure communities.

I also personally just don't like the idea. First-come, first-served is perfectly fair. Name is one of the least important aspects of a region, considering how people have built great communities with silly/gibberish names. If one has trouble attracting people to a region, it's likely not the name that is holding one back, but the methods one uses and the things the region offers.

First-come, first-served makes sense if you're talking about people wanting to use one or two regions either to seclude themselves or to build a community. Region-hawkers are just interested in collecting names. And the name of a region absolutely can be a thing that attracts people to it - take Christmas for instance. I'm not saying the methods used or the things offered by the region are secondary to the name, but you can't discount that its name plays a big part of how it is perceived and who finds it attractive. People do judge regions by their name.

Region hawking I see as fine, as the regions can CTE and someone can use them. Nation name hawking I'm against, but that's not what this change would be about. It seems like it'd be a lot of work, and have a lot of issues, for something that isn't that terrible of a problem, there are a lot of names open to everyone.

I'd be alright with making regions CTE without any WA nations in them, or if the region hadn't had a WA in it for the last 28 days. That would mostly solve the 'issue' of region hawking.

The problem is there are people who have held on to regions others would gladly attempt to build communities around for not just 1 or 2 years, but for a decade or more. So they don't CTE, and no one can ever use them. That is why I really like your idea of changing the rules for how regions CTE. However, I don't think the presence of a WA nation should be the only deciding factor. I'd be in favor of a system that allows the founder 1 year free reign, and from then on checks for a minimum level of activity (answering issues, RMB posts, embassies, etc.), size, and/or WA presence.

[Frisbeeteria]

if a person has a region which is easily involving multiple players, then any detection of nation-sharing/multying should be ignored.

That pretty much makes this DOA right there. If it can't be automated, it's not going to get coded. If you're going to require a Game Mod to define which nations are being shared versus which meet your other criteria, we're not interested. The difficulty of this process is what caused us to move the R/D game from mod-detected to influence-based. We have no interest in going back to the bad old days.

And before anybody tells me to check IPs and "it ought to be obvious", please bear in mind that I spend hours every day dealing with this sort of thing, and I know exactly how hard it would be. Nation sharing throws a wrench into everything it touches.

[USS Monitor]

I'd be alright with making regions CTE without any WA nations in them, or if the region hadn't had a WA in it for the last 28 days. That would mostly solve the 'issue' of region hawking.

That's an absolutely terrible idea. People should never be forced to join the WA to use unrelated features like regions, minigames, etc. It's possible to be very active in NSG or RP without having a WA nation. WA membership messes with stats, which some people don't want, and not everyone wants to maintain a separate puppet just for WA status.

WA membership should only be required for WA-related things.

[Galiantus III]

if a person has a region which is easily involving multiple players, then any detection of nation-sharing/multying should be ignored.

That pretty much makes this DOA right there. If it can't be automated, it's not going to get coded. If you're going to require a Game Mod to define which nations are being shared versus which meet your other criteria, we're not interested. The difficulty of this process is what caused us to move the R/D game from mod-detected to influence-based. We have no interest in going back to the bad old days.

And before anybody tells me to check IPs and "it ought to be obvious", please bear in mind that I spend hours every day dealing with this sort of thing, and I know exactly how hard it would be. Nation sharing throws a wrench into everything it touches.

"Easily involving multiple players" doesn't have to be handled by Mods. Have the system just skip over regions with two or more of the following (obviously amendable) criteria: 10 or more nations, a WA nation, issues answered in the last week, or an RMB post in the last month. There's a reason I used "multying-lite" to describe this. It's not supposed to be a "bam! you're done!" sort of system. It doesn't need to work quickly or be particularly strict. In fact, I would be opposed to making this a basis for giving players warnings or bans. All the system needs to do if it detects that someone has founded multiple dead regions is relocate the handful of nations in the dead regions to TRR and make the region CTE, then send a message to the nations it moved explaining why it happened.

This also isn't the only solution to the problem. I started this thread to discuss any and all solutions, it's just this solution was the one that popped into my head first. If you prefer we can discuss changes to how regions CTE (like Flanderlion suggested) or how regions are founded (like Aclion hinted at).

[Fauxia]

I feel like that would be hard to code, though it may not, as I really know nothing about the subject. Anyway, I don’t have a problem with region hawking. It’s annoying, in some cases, but there are enough names out there that it probably won’t change much. Furthermore, this could hurt the preservation of regions that should be preserved- like Nazi Europe. There are just too many circumstances to consider, here.

[Aglrinia]

I do believe there should be limitations of some sort on how many regions one can found take for example The Guards the person that created that has approximately one-hundred and sixty five regions. I would hope any reasonable person would consider that to be over the top. They say; "We refound regions and keep them safe. Everyone is free to stay in one of our regions." Yet the delegate doesn't have access to executive controls in any of their region's nor do they respond to telegrams so establishing a government in any of the region's would be a logistical nightmare. While anyone that's ever founded a region, knows how much work needs to go into one if you truly dedicate yourself to it.

[Clean Land]

I have a suggestion that does not need more than technical involvement and a bit of mod involvement(and possibly SC involvement):

Regional CTE rules:
A region ceases to exist if any of the following happens:
1.The regional message board has not been used for 30 days(Spam is still prohibited). Nations in such a region get a CTE warning after 25 days.
2.No nation is in the region.

... and none of the following applies:
1.The region is a Feeder, a Sinker, a Warzone or a class region.
2.The region has been locked(but not deleted) by the moderators or admins for rule violations or other reasons
and possibly
3.The region has been marked for preservation by the Security Council
Preservation: A resolution to preserve a region for historic reasons
Effect:If the region marked for preservation would cease to exist, then all their inhabitants are forcefully ejected, the founder and WA delegate are removed, and the region is locked down permanently. The region will cease to exist if an active(not a pending) preservation resolution is repealed.

[Trotterdam]

How would this account for nation-sharing? Founder nations are often shared in order to minimize CTE risk.

Implementing a founder succession system (as has also been brought under discussion) would hopefully cut down on the need for that.

Though it also raises questions, like, what if the current founder isn't validated but the successor is? Is the region safe?

[Galiantus III]

I have a suggestion that does not need more than technical involvement and a bit of mod involvement(and possibly SC involvement):

Regional CTE rules:
A region ceases to exist if any of the following happens:
1.The regional message board has not been used for 30 days(Spam is still prohibited). Nations in such a region get a CTE warning after 25 days.
2.No nation is in the region.

... and none of the following applies:
1.The region is a Feeder, a Sinker, a Warzone or a class region.
2.The region has been locked(but not deleted) by the moderators or admins for rule violations or other reasons
and possibly
3.The region has been marked for preservation by the Security Council
Preservation: A resolution to preserve a region for historic reasons
Effect:If the region marked for preservation would cease to exist, then all their inhabitants are forcefully ejected, the founder and WA delegate are removed, and the region is locked down permanently. The region will cease to exist if an active(not a pending) preservation resolution is repealed.

I like the idea of adding a preservation SC resolution, but I think the RMB isn't the only thing that should be checked. I also think 60 days would be better, as there are regions not being hawked that experience long periods of inactivity. What do you think of these amendments?

A region ceases to exist if all of the following happens:
1. The regional message board has not been used for 60 days(Spam is still prohibited). Nations in such a region get a CTE warning after 45 days.
2. No nation has answered or dismissed an issue for 30 days.
3. No WA nation has been in the region for 90 days.

Or if the following happens:
1. No nation is in the region.

... and none of the following applies:
1.The region is a Feeder, a Sinker, a Warzone or a class region.
2.The region contains 10 nations or more.

[Frisbeeteria]

2.The region has been locked(but not deleted) by the moderators or admins for rule violations or other reasons

FYI, that's not a thing. We don't have a region-locking tool, only a region emptying tool. If you see a WFE stating "Region cleared by moderators. Please do not attempt to reestablish this region, it's going to disappear on the next update (unless, like Nazi, we parked a mod puppet there because people always refounded).

I still think this is a solution in search of a problem. I have no idea why we're indulging OP's concerns about this.

[Victorious Decepticons]

This entire idea sounds awful. I have my own passworded region, with nobody in it but my 3 nations. The founding nation is one I don't really use anymore, but from what I understand, I have to keep it in order to R/D-proof my region. Of course it has barely any activity. That doesn't mean I should have to either give up my region, open it to activity that would only annoy me,or HAVE TO pay with the boring humans of Fergi America (which would make it into a job instead of fun).

I don't let the WA near any of my nations. I certainly don't want to have to ruin a nation just so some random doesn't mistakenly think I have a billion regions.

ETA: Obviously I don't use my RMB. I oppose any requirement to do so.

Oh and whether or not you think someone could "build a community" in my region or not is irrelevant. It's mine fair and square. If you can't think of another name that's just as cool, tough nuts! I'm sure other region founders would think the same! Your lack of creativity should never be anybody's problem but your own.

I'd be alright with making regions CTE without any WA nations in them, or if the region hadn't had a WA in it for the last 28 days. That would mostly solve the 'issue' of region hawking.

That's an absolutely terrible idea. People should never be forced to join the WA to use unrelated features like regions, minigames, etc. It's possible to be very active in NSG or RP without having a WA nation. WA membership messes with stats, which some people don't want, and not everyone wants to maintain a separate puppet just for WA status.

WA membership should only be required for WA-related things.

So much this! I've put a lot of effort into creating my iron-fisted dictatorships, and that includes the ones I'm not actively using. I wouldn't want the WA's effect anywhere near them.

[Galiantus III]

This entire idea sounds awful.

This isn't just one idea. It's any idea that would reduce the problem of region hawking. What are your thoughts on the other ideas?

Edit: Also, I really, really, really want your input. You are the sort of player I don't want to see affected by any final solution here. I want you and others like you to feel safe with whatever method is used to address region hawks.

I still think this is a solution in search of a problem. I have no idea why we're indulging OP's concerns about this.

Which specific solution are you talking about? My entire goal here is to address the issue of region hawking, and I'm not the only person who has a problem with it. Any and all ides to address that are what I'd like to discuss - not just the first suggestion I made. If you think there's another way we should be trying to address the problem, push us in that direction.

[Clean Land]

I have a suggestion that does not need more than technical involvement and a bit of mod involvement(and possibly SC involvement):

Regional CTE rules:
A region ceases to exist if any of the following happens:
1.The regional message board has not been used for 30 days(Spam is still prohibited). Nations in such a region get a CTE warning after 25 days.
2.No nation is in the region.

... and none of the following applies:
1.The region is a Feeder, a Sinker, a Warzone or a class region.
2.The region has been locked(but not deleted) by the moderators or admins for rule violations or other reasons
and possibly
3.The region has been marked for preservation by the Security Council
Preservation: A resolution to preserve a region for historic reasons
Effect:If the region marked for preservation would cease to exist, then all their inhabitants are forcefully ejected, the founder and WA delegate are removed, and the region is locked down permanently. The region will cease to exist if an active(not a pending) preservation resolution is repealed.

I like the idea of adding a preservation SC resolution, but I think the RMB isn't the only thing that should be checked. I also think 60 days would be better, as there are regions not being hawked that experience long periods of inactivity. What do you think of these amendments?

A region ceases to exist if all of the following happens:
1. The regional message board has not been used for 60 days(Spam is still prohibited). Nations in such a region get a CTE warning after 45 days.
2. No nation has answered or dismissed an issue for 30 days.
3. No WA nation has been in the region for 90 days.

Or if the following happens:
1. No nation is in the region.

... and none of the following applies:
1.The region is a Feeder, a Sinker, a Warzone or a class region.
2.The region contains 10 nations or more.

A region ceases to exist if all of the following happens:
1. The regional message board has not been used for 60 days(Spam is still prohibited). Nations in such a region get a CTE warning after 45 days.
2. The region does not have a password.
3. The regional delegate has not voted on any WA resolutions for 60 days.
4. The region is not a class region.

It also ceases to exist when any of these apply:
1. No nation is in the region.
2. The regional message board has not been used for 2 years. Nations in such a region get a CTE warning one month before deadline.

... and none of the following applies:
1.The region is a Feeder, a Sinker or a Warzone.
2.The nation is not protected from vanishing by the Security Council(if applicable).

This should accomodate concerns. If someone cannot do one meaningful post in a region for 2 years then they don't deserve to hold the region.
A ten nations exception is bad, because it has an obvious loophole.

[Bears Armed]

So, consider the following situation...

1/ I find a region that looks interesting, and create a puppet to place there.
2/ Some time later, unfortunately, everybody else who was involved in that region has drifted away or even left NS altogether.
3/ The region gets tag-raided, and even if those tags get cleared by defenders at some point later on it gets tag-raided again.
4/ I want to keep the region in existence for old time's sake, can only clear the raiders' tags by re-founding, am willing to put in the work necessary in terms of saving (and subsequently re-posting) the previous version's history and -- probably (saved, if not necessarily re-posted unless & until somebody asks to see them) -- at least the last few pages of its RMB, and would leave the re-founded region open to immigration afterwards.

You want to say that I shouldn't be allowed to re-found, even if nobody else had shown any interest in that region -- except as a target for tag-raiding -- for quite a while? Seriously?

Opposed.

[Galiantus III]

You want to say that I shouldn't be allowed to re-found, even if nobody else had shown any interest in that region -- except as a target for tag-raiding -- for quite a while? Seriously?

That's not what I said. If you're doing that with one or two regions, great. However, if it is one of twenty regions for which you are doing this, then that's most likely a problem. And none of what I've suggested would prevent you from being able to re-found the region - if anything it might be slightly easier.

You do bring up a great point, though, and that is other people showing interest in a region. If a person is hawking a region no one cares about, then they're not annoying anyone. That is worth talking about here.

[Tim-Opolis]

This just isn't a tenable idea, ultimately. People will always keep refounding regions, and just jump through whatever "awful to maintain hoops" are set up here. I own more than a few trophy regions, a couple puppet dumps, and two significant User Created Regions (Greece and Spiritus). I shouldn't have to jump through hoops to maintain my ownership of the region just because joe shmoe is grumpy that the exact name he wants for a region is taken. Requiring WA's in the region fucks RPers, requiring RMB posts is just restrictive and forceful, especially for regions which are intentionally dormant and stuff. Making a nation be only able to found one region will just get you individual founder nations, which is what people should be doing anyway. There's frankly no way to do this without it being a major pain in the ass for everyone that isn't the couple of people it'll placate.

[Abraxim]

As I have been playing for 12 years, players like Macedon are the single biggest reason NS isn't fun. He has literally done nothing for the entire time he has played, and likely uses some code or script to keep them alive. He is the definition of a griefer, IMO. Many are locked up, none are used.

Same goes for raiders who lock and abandon a region with one puppet out of spite or trophies. They serve no value or use, and only are there to annoy players who do call those places home, or would do something productive.

I had thought liberations, when that was introduced, would be the end of Macadon-like non players, but it is too difficult to liberate regions that way.

A far simpler solution would be to allow for region liberations of this sort as an independent WA voting system, or automatic password removals for regions with less than X nations after Y period of time.

A third option is to make RL country names for regions essentially war zones with similar rules. That would create an instant option to "conquer the world" while simultaneously creating demand from their populations without chance of it being locked up again.

[Galiantus III]

Griefing is a good term for it, for sure. It's annoying and messy, and serves no in-game purpose.

A far simpler solution would be to allow for region liberations of this sort as an independent WA voting system, or automatic password removals for regions with less than X nations after Y period of time.

I think if a number of WA nations can get together and express an interest to build a region with a name that has been taken, and if that region is old and dead, then that group of players has a legitimate claim to that name. What would be nice is if groups of players could submit appeals to a SC version of GenSec.

A third option is to make RL country names for regions essentially war zones with similar rules. That would create an instant option to "conquer the world" while simultaneously creating demand from their populations without chance of it being locked up again.

What about regions with RL country names that are currently bustling communities, though? I'd feel terrible if implementing this idea would mean they lose control of their region.

[Abraxim]

Well, I would make it so those regions that are populated remain until such time that they become available. So Japan would be safe, Sierra Leone would be converted. When Japan eventually falls, the Game convert it at that time too.