NATION

PASSWORD

Frontiers/Strongholds [ex Democracy/Autocracy]

Bug reports, general help, ideas for improvements, and questions about how things are meant to work.
User avatar
Sedgistan
Senior Issues Moderator
 
Posts: 30618
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Anarchy

Frontiers/Strongholds [ex Democracy/Autocracy]

Postby Sedgistan » Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:41 pm

This is a wide-ranging series of interlinked changes meant to address several issues in gameplay. There has been some previous discussion on earlier concepts of this both here when Violet first suggested it publicly, and here.

As of 9th September, the below is an up-to-date summary of where I am with the idea. It is not a simple task to update this OP, so it will not always reflect the latest developments.



Regions can choose to be either Frontier (formerly "Democracy", also occasionally referred to as "Gateway") or Stronghold (formerly "Autocracy") regions; new region tags would be created for both which would be automatically applied.

Frontiers

  • Founder (if any) is non-executive; executive power lies solely with the WA Delegate.
  • 6 month influence decay as in feeders.
  • 50% of newly spawned nations are spawned in eligible Democracy regions rather than feeders.
  • To be eligible to have nations spawned in them, the WA Delegate must have at least 10 verified endorsements, a Welcome TG must be set and a password cannot be set. This requirements must be met for a week for the spawnings to start. That 1 week counter resets if the region fails to meet any of the requirements at any point.
  • New Security Council Category: "Embargo" - prevents nations being founded in the nominated region. Cannot work on Feeders. On hold as per 2nd September; this may be implemented later if necessary.

The intention of these regions is to be high-risk, high-reward. They are extremely vulnerable - you're protected only by WA endorsements and influence (and even then have to watch out for internal coups from Regional Officers). The payoff is that you get "free" nations via spawnings in your region.

The expectation is that these regions would become significant sources of conflict. If you control the one and only Frontier region, you're ruler of NationStates' first gigaregion. If a competitor crops up, it could steal half your influx of nations - so your incentive is to crush it. I would expect to see regular warring between "Frontier" regions as they look to eliminate rivals.

I was interested in having a "game over" scenario for these regions - i.e. the ability to conquer or destroy them permanently, but I think it overcomplicates this change adding new mechanisms for this. At present, I'm thinking the influence limits and lack of Executive founder means that the "game over" may be the conventional method of emptying a region and passwording it, but I am open to alternative ideas as passwording is vulnerable to a SC Liberation so a non-ideal choice. Further aspects of this are touched on in sections below on switching status. I dislike the idea of them being re-founded for permanent conquest, as part of this overall change is to reduce history-erasing refoundings.

The eligibility requirement being based on verified endorsements seems to be the neatest way to ensure there are X number of actual people invested in that region. I do not want people to be able to found dozens of Frontier regions that are eligible to receive new nations, or there's an incentive to have The Moon 1, The Moon 2, The Moon 3, etc., funneling nations towards one central region. A higher endorsement number has been suggested - 20 is relatively popular. I want to avoid a situation where qualifying Frontiers are only attainable for experienced gameplayers.


Strongholds

  • Like regions currently are, but the Founder can appoint a Successor, who takes over Executive status should the Founder CTE.
  • Founders with a live Succesor appointed can abdicate their position without needing to wait until they CTE.

That's really it for how they're different. The intention is for these to provide an additional layer of security for regions uninterested in R/D, and to reduce the need for messy refoundings, which erase regional history. There is a slight double-edged sword element to it, as yes, someone could infiltrate a region long-term in order to be appointed Successor.

The current thinking is that a Successor is appointed as a Regional Officer position, and that only one can be named. As it's an RO position, the chosen Successor can therefore resign the position. At present it is intended that a Successor takes over immediately on the Founder ceasing to exist. A wait period has been suggested, but this (slightly) reduces the security benefit and also adds to coding complexity - you would need to prevent the Delegate from being able to dismiss the Successor from their RO position. If the Successor has CTEd before the Founder does, then the Successor does not take over the position.

Abdication is a subsequent addition to this plan, and is necessary because otherwise a Founder wishing to hand over the reins would have to CTE first - we don't want to incentivise that behaviour. At present this is only intended to be possible when a live (non-CTEd) Successor is appointed; if the Founder wants to turn the region into a Founderless one they should consider Frontier status.




Existing Regions and Switching Status

All existing regions will automatically become Stronghold regions by default.

Switching status was originally a big question mark in the original plan, but has got more certain since - the intention is for it to be possible both ways, so that regions can decide both now, and in the future, how they want to be governed.

Stronghold to Frontier - someone with Executive power can make the transition (i.e. Founder if present, Delegate if no Founder present / Founder has enabled Executive powers for the Delegate). There would need to be a hefty influence cost if done by a Delegate; at least the amount for setting a secret password. This then has a 2 week time period to take effect. Anyone with Executive powers can cancel it during this period with no cost. I know there are concerns regarding Delegates initiating this switch, with suggestions it should take longer if they do it. I'm not yet convinced by this - if the Founder doesn't want to worry about this they should remove Executive powers from the Delegate.

Frontier to Stronghold - the Delegate (the only nation that can have Executive powers) can start the process in the same way - same influence cost, and same 2 week period. Spawnings cease if they initiate this switch - you don't get the benefits if you're quitting Democracy status! If the Founder still exists, then they will regain Executive status on the transition completing. If the Founder nation does not, then the Delegate holding the region at the time of the transition enacting becomes Executive Founder. A password can be set while this switch is ongoing, as "Preserve" (below) is a tool in place to allow these transitions to be blocked.

This allows regions to reverse course if they find they no longer want to be Frontiers. It also allows for an element of permanent conquest of Frontiers if the Founder nation is no longer present; an invasion can be made "permanent" when the WA Delegate becomes Executive Founder. There is an issue with this is that it provides a convoluted for founderless Stronghold regions to appoint a new Founder, but they have to go via a convoluted change to Frontier and back -- so why not just have a way for them to appoint a Founder? See Custodian below.

Security Council Category: "Preserve" - which prevents the transition (either way) from taking effect if an Executive Founder is not present in the region -- i.e. this is the same situation as Liberations taking effect with regards to Founders; the intent here being that the SC cannot prevent an Executive Founder transitioning their region to Democracy status.

Possible further additional Security Council Category: "Custodian" - this is a later addition to the discussion, and would appoint a chosen nation as Custodian to a chosen region. While the resolution is in effect, the nation would have Executive status within the chosen region while it is a Stronghold type, but must spend influence to use Regional Controls, same as a Delegate. A Custodian wouldn't take effect for a region which either 1) has an Executive Founder present, or 2) is a Frontier. Is this necessary if a founderless region has the option to switch to Stronghold (or if Stronghold already, then switch to Frontier and back) to gain a new Founder? This, like Embargo, is no longer part of the initial implementation plan.




Why?

The main advantages of this change are:
  • Reduces the over-sized feeders (bad for technical reasons)
  • Dilutes GCR influence
  • Gives a more lasting/reliable opt-out from being invaded for those that want it
  • Reduces messy re-foundings, which wipe regional history
  • Includes a significant incentive for there to be a good number of "invadable" regions
  • Incentivises invading these regions
  • Creates a more "consensual" R/D game
  • Gives the SC new tools with teeth

I view this idea as the "big" Gameplay/SC project to work on, and it's on my agenda to have it implemented. There are lots of other great ideas for gameplay, some of them significant changes, but I currently feel this has the widest benefits, improving the status of existing gameplay while remaining a relatively simple concept that doesn't make fundamental changes to the game's principles.




Are there any recruitment changes included in this?

No. It's been discussed, but I don't want to tie reforms to recruitment into this change, although obviously it will affect where nations spawn. TG-related recruitment falls under Kat's Communications (Gameside) portfolio, but some other aspects (e.g. a new "find a region" page) are mine. These are handled in other threads.




Can we get a Global Chat with this, as I'm concerned Frontier RMBs won't be active enough for new players?

I ran this past admin; a global chat isn't possible separate from the planned forum/RMB overhaul, so it won't be coming with this change.

I would expect that for the most case, nations spawning in Frontiers would find their starting region to be very active. Any region opting for Frontier is doing so for the benefits of those new spawns, and thus has every interest in making the same effort that Feeders do to retain those nations. Those that are inactive face having their region taken, and those that are new will have to be highly active to maintain their security. I also think it is beneficial, for the most part, for nations to spawn in regions that might be in the midst of conflict, as it provides meaningful in-game events for them to immediately get involved in. So overall I don't see this new player experience being the issue that some think.



Aren't Sinkers/puppet dumps too large as well?

Yes. Sinkers face a different challenge though, in that the nations they get are not generally new players who might get involved in their region, so cutting down their inflow might just harm their activity further. I'm open to ideas for addressing their size, but feel they should be separate to this change. Puppet dump related changes also need to be handled in their own threads.




Why not make Feeders into Frontier regions?

I view it as a positive for the game to have a diversity of region types, as it encourages different player behaviours, provides for interesting interactions between them, and some players suit certain region types better than others. Feeders are part of that patchwork that also includes Sinkers (both types), Warzones, Frontiers and Strongholds.

On a more controversial note, I also like a level of inbuilt inequality within the game -- for example when people complain about Delegate voting power (meaning their endorsing nations effectively vote twice on proposals) being both unfair and undemocratic, I nod, and think yes - and that's good for the game, as it encourages people to build power bases, lobby etc. And having some regions that have an inbuilt status as being more powerful offers similar benefits - the regions are more prestigious, positions there are something many players aspire (and conspire) towards, and it ensures there are some mega-Delegates in the game. But it's gone a bit too far towards favouring this, and part of this change is about reducing (but not eliminating) that inequality.
Last edited by Sedgistan on Thu Sep 09, 2021 3:05 am, edited 11 times in total.

User avatar
Weed
Diplomat
 
Posts: 862
Founded: Oct 23, 2011
Anarchy

Postby Weed » Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:58 pm

What becomes the status of current non-executive foundered regions? I assume no more could be created as they have none of the benefits. Also, I have some regions that are Non-executive founders (like Bahamas) that I've held for some time. Originally wanted to do something with them, now just around. Please don't migrate us all to democracy without the heads up. :)

This is a great idea. Just to point out though, I'm not sure no password AND no way to go back to autocracy is the way to go. If that's what you do, there will only be an ever-increasing number of these as refounds will be very tough, which would mean your posit that these will be fought over would diminish rather quickly. DEN's attempts to refound St Abbaddon showed that even with no natives, it is tough to stop nations jumping in at the same time you are trying to refound. DEN ceased to exist before they were able to pull it off. I think some sort of hold the region for a while and then permanently turn off the spout on new nations is in order if you want these to be rare enough a commodity people care about individual ones.
Last edited by Weed on Tue Jul 06, 2021 1:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I prefer not to be called that
Ex-Defender
Former WASC Author
----V----
Weed
LIVE FREE

User avatar
The Python
Diplomat
 
Posts: 955
Founded: Jul 24, 2020
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby The Python » Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:58 pm

Noice!
Card farmer, WA fenda and filthy cosmo. he/they pronouns
For: Universal healthcare,Socialism,Human/animal rights,Direct Democracy
Against: Authoritarianism,Racism,War,Nationalism,Factory farming
Political compass 9Axes 8Values
fenda nations always deserve banjection - Evil Cub
I wish i could be quoted in a forum sig v_v - Alfonzo
anyone more than double python's age is old - Altmoras
The difference between an invader and an imperialist is that...the imperialist will write several paragraphs about how the region's poll officer's cousin's friend's soccer coach once arranged his fridge magnets to spell out FRA and this is therefore a great leap forward in their war effort. - Altmoras
What they say about me
SEASON T*REE!

User avatar
Esthe
Envoy
 
Posts: 349
Founded: Feb 21, 2021
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Esthe » Tue Jul 06, 2021 1:00 pm

Cool. When’s the change rolling out?
I cannot take any music later than 1980, with a few exceptions.

I’m at the right end of the center-left. You could potentially call me a neocon, because when I bite, I bite down hard.

Sapply value results: https://sapplyvalues.github.io/results.html?right=-2.00&auth=-2.00&prog=4.06
Pro: Nature, Biden, equality, optimism
Anti: Corruption, racism, Trump, Nazis, overt pessimism
#FreeRojava


Resident NS proghead.

User avatar
Sedgistan
Senior Issues Moderator
 
Posts: 30618
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Sedgistan » Tue Jul 06, 2021 1:03 pm

I knew I'd forget something:

What decides which region nations spawn in?

It's been suggested that an element of revamping recruitment be incorporated into this change, basically to give nations a choice of where they go before the recruitment TGs flood in. This would be a page at the last step of nation creation that lets nations choose from a selection of eligible regions for their nation to be founded in. For the lazy/impatient, this could be skipped and you'd just end up somewhere random.

I'm open to thoughts on this. If it's bundled into D/A, then the page would likely only list eligible Democracies (and Feeders?), or I feel it kind of undermines the change if nations are given a list of non-Democracy regions to spawn in.

User avatar
Sedgistan
Senior Issues Moderator
 
Posts: 30618
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Sedgistan » Tue Jul 06, 2021 1:06 pm

Weed wrote:What becomes the status of current non-executive foundered regions? I assume no more could be created as they have none of the benefits. Also, I have some regions that are Non-executive founders (like Bahamas) that I've held for some time. Originally wanted to do something with them, now just around. Please don't migrate us all to democracy without the heads up. :)

My answer to this remains "don't know". I'm open to suggestions - you're one of the few players who has made use of this type of region.

Weed wrote:This is a great idea. Just to point out though, I'm not sure no password AND no way to go back to autocracy is the way to go. If that's what you do, there will only be an ever-increasing number of these as refounds will be very tough, which would mean your posit that these will be fought over would diminish rather quickly. DEN's attempts to refound St Abbaddon showed that even with no natives, it is tough to stop nations jumping in at the same time you are trying to refound. DEN ceased to exist before they were able to pull it off. I think some sort of hold the region for a while and then permanently turn off the spout on new nations is in order if you want these to be rare enough a commodity people care about individual ones.

For the region to rebound and have spawnings it would need to get 10+ endorsements on its Delegate again -- but I guess that is possible. And re-founding is something we're looking to avoid, so maybe there should be another method of permanent conquest for Democracies?

Passwords maybe could work, but only if having one meant you were ineligible for new nations. But I don't like the idea of Democracies having that tool, as larger ones may occasionally use it for security - I'd prefer them to be constantly vulnerable.

User avatar
Morover
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1340
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Libertarian Police State

Postby Morover » Tue Jul 06, 2021 1:12 pm

I was writing a longer list of critiques and stuff, but decided it was mostly irrelevant and instead will just lend my support towards this idea, so long as the situation with integrating current regions into the system is figured out.

One question, would Warzones become democracies with their otherwise unique functionality kept intact?

Also, given your post about nations potentially choosing which region to spawn in, how would this interact with the point that only 50% of nations spawn in Democracies, with the other half spawning in feeders?
World Assembly Author
ns.morover@gmail.com

User avatar
Weed
Diplomat
 
Posts: 862
Founded: Oct 23, 2011
Anarchy

Postby Weed » Tue Jul 06, 2021 1:13 pm

Sedgistan wrote:For the region to rebound and have spawnings it would need to get 10+ endorsements on its Delegate again -- but I guess that is possible. And re-founding is something we're looking to avoid, so maybe there should be another method of permanent conquest for Democracies?

Passwords maybe could work, but only if having one meant you were ineligible for new nations. But I don't like the idea of Democracies having that tool, as larger ones may occasionally use it for security - I'd prefer them to be constantly vulnerable.

I agree they shouldn't be able to lock down and keep their flow of nations, but I just don't think they'll be fought over very long if they supply just keeps going up and up on these regions. At the point where a major org owned 2 or 3 they'd stop trying to take the rest for sure because you can't hold an infinite number. And then people would realize its easier to create one than to take one over, so why try?

IMO, it makes more sense for these to be regular regions first, and at a highish influence cost (even for founders) they choose to become democracies. Then I can't just spam out 10 of them on the first day and there's no real hope the GPers can fight over all of them.
I prefer not to be called that
Ex-Defender
Former WASC Author
----V----
Weed
LIVE FREE

User avatar
The Python
Diplomat
 
Posts: 955
Founded: Jul 24, 2020
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby The Python » Tue Jul 06, 2021 1:14 pm

Sedgistan wrote:
Weed wrote:What becomes the status of current non-executive foundered regions? I assume no more could be created as they have none of the benefits. Also, I have some regions that are Non-executive founders (like Bahamas) that I've held for some time. Originally wanted to do something with them, now just around. Please don't migrate us all to democracy without the heads up. :)

My answer to this remains "don't know". I'm open to suggestions - you're one of the few players who has made use of this type of region.

In my opinion the region's founder should be able to choose whenever this rolls out.
Question: if a democracy is embargoed, it still has a non-executive founder and executive delegate right?
Card farmer, WA fenda and filthy cosmo. he/they pronouns
For: Universal healthcare,Socialism,Human/animal rights,Direct Democracy
Against: Authoritarianism,Racism,War,Nationalism,Factory farming
Political compass 9Axes 8Values
fenda nations always deserve banjection - Evil Cub
I wish i could be quoted in a forum sig v_v - Alfonzo
anyone more than double python's age is old - Altmoras
The difference between an invader and an imperialist is that...the imperialist will write several paragraphs about how the region's poll officer's cousin's friend's soccer coach once arranged his fridge magnets to spell out FRA and this is therefore a great leap forward in their war effort. - Altmoras
What they say about me
SEASON T*REE!

User avatar
Obets
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 176
Founded: Jan 04, 2021
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Obets » Tue Jul 06, 2021 1:21 pm

I disagree with this, it sets too many guidlines that can make regions like the Free Nations Region divided among what they should choose. Overall I disagree with this plan
President CJ Stryplynge
President
Former Parliamentarian
Obets United Republic
Member of LITA
We do NOT use NS stats when RPing
This country DOES represent my ideological beliefs. Although, my welfare and civil rights like to lower randomly which I don't like.

User avatar
Zeritae
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 476
Founded: Jun 10, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Zeritae » Tue Jul 06, 2021 1:28 pm

Could GCR's be embargoed?
The United Republic of Zeritae Please don't send me telegrams - not A NA nor A.
Zurkerx wrote:
Agarntrop wrote:snip

One already exists: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=484632&start=25

And seeing we're over the page limit, I #ilock now. We can't let the umm, super virus get out now.
Rojava Free State wrote:Roblox is the only place where you can napalm a group of children and not be a war criminal.
The-Chinese-Federation wrote:Zeritan Revolutionary Front. Damn Nazbols.
The Iron Wizards of Blacktower wrote:
Tinhampton wrote:Direct the what what what what what again? I'm utterly baffled at what this has to do with the goodness of Friends With Benefits

Become enlightened through sex.
[Table=plain][tr][color=EE0044][/color]/tr][/table]
[align=][/align]

User avatar
Cormactopia Prime
Minister
 
Posts: 2753
Founded: Sep 21, 2016
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Cormactopia Prime » Tue Jul 06, 2021 1:31 pm

I'm overall extremely in favor of this. A few brief points:

  • I would stick with 6 month influence decay for Democracies to see how this works. It could be adjusted later.
  • If the intent is to let there be a game over situation for these regions, agreed with Weed that no password, no Autocracy will make that very hard. But I'm also agreed that letting regions go back to Autocracy is a bad idea. It lets regions game this system to get the benefits of Democracy, then revert. A separate game over option coded into how these regions work might be desirable, like allowing imposition of a password once the region drops below a certain population.
  • In Autocracies, I think it would be fine for the Successor to not be in the region, but once it becomes Founder the WA Delegate would be executive until the new Founder moves into the region -- exactly how it works now when a Founder isn't in the region.
  • The Successor immediately taking over is the best option, otherwise you allow leeway for invasion and destruction. A Successor should be able to decline at the time of appointment, but not at the time of becoming Founder, otherwise you end up in a founderless situation again.
  • Regarding what to do with grey area regions (historic founderless, non-executive Founders), I say let them choose in the same way founderless regions were once given the option of choosing a Founder. It's the cleanest way to avoid forcing unwanted circumstances on these regions, which are usually quite small and vulnerable. Should any be too inactive to choose one way or the other, I think I'd transition them to Autocracies to err on the side of their safety.
  • Agreed that if there is a new recruitment page, it should list only Democracies and maybe Feeders. Torn on that because Feeders don't need the help.
My biggest suggestion for how to improve this idea even more is to let Sinkers and Warzones opt to become Democracies because unlike Feeders, they do need the help. This would allow Democracy Sinkers and Warzones to receive spawned nations and appear on the new recruitment page. In exchange, the Democracy Sinkers and Warzones would be giving up unlimited security, as the same game over conditions that exist in UCRs that became Democracies would now exist in them. For the first time, a GCR could be destroyed, which shouldn't be a problem given the regions would have opted into the possibility of destruction by becoming Democracies. If a Sinker or a Warzone is destroyed, it could be replaced by a brand new Sinker or Warzone to continue meeting the needs previously met by the destroyed region.

Whether you move forward with that additional idea or not, I really love this and hope it ultimately ends up implemented!
Last edited by Cormactopia Prime on Tue Jul 06, 2021 1:37 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Cormac Skollvaldr

I've done some things and some stuff...

"Follow your arrow wherever it points." - Kacey Musgraves

User avatar
Zeritae
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 476
Founded: Jun 10, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Zeritae » Tue Jul 06, 2021 1:36 pm

I think that changing from D to A and/or A to D might not be bad if there is a long waiting time in between.
The United Republic of Zeritae Please don't send me telegrams - not A NA nor A.
Zurkerx wrote:
Agarntrop wrote:snip

One already exists: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=484632&start=25

And seeing we're over the page limit, I #ilock now. We can't let the umm, super virus get out now.
Rojava Free State wrote:Roblox is the only place where you can napalm a group of children and not be a war criminal.
The-Chinese-Federation wrote:Zeritan Revolutionary Front. Damn Nazbols.
The Iron Wizards of Blacktower wrote:
Tinhampton wrote:Direct the what what what what what again? I'm utterly baffled at what this has to do with the goodness of Friends With Benefits

Become enlightened through sex.
[Table=plain][tr][color=EE0044][/color]/tr][/table]
[align=][/align]

User avatar
Galiantus III
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1006
Founded: Jan 23, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Galiantus III » Tue Jul 06, 2021 1:38 pm

Sedgistan wrote:
Before we go further: I am not in any way attached to the "Democracy" and "Autocracy" labels, and am very open to changing them. I know objections have been raised to these names in the past, and I get those.

The names definitely need to be changed for the sake of clarity, because otherwise players will make decisions based on the real-world definitions, leading to them getting upset when they get unexpected results. We need very descriptive names. I already proposed this in Flanderlion's thread, but I think describing Democracy as "power-oriented" and Autocracy as "security-oriented" suggests to the average person the actual choice they are making, with all the associated trade-offs. So if someone chooses to make their region "power-oriented" instead of "security-oriented", there is less room for surprise when their region is invaded, even if they don't fully understand how an invasion works.

  • To be eligible to have nations spawned in them, the WA Delegate must have at least 10 verified endorsements, and a Welcome TG must be set.

[...]

The eligibility requirement being based on verified endorsements seems to be the neatest way to ensure there are X number of actual people invested in that region. I do not want people to be able to found dozens of Democracy regions that are eligible to receive new nations, or there's an incentive to have The Moon 1, The Moon 2, The Moon 3, etc., funneling nations towards one central region.


10 endorsements on the delegate is a very small number. It's the kind of thing that would see lots of R/D players just founding new regions and distributing nations between them as a way of advertising their organization. It also means more new players would start out in very small regions with not much activity, which I have a problem with. That said I see the appeal of keeping it somewhat low so the barrier to entry is actually attainable. Perhaps the chance of nation spawns could be weighted by delegate endorsements: nations are twice as likely to spawn in a region if the delegate has 100 endorsements as opposed to 50. Thus it would be more desirable to group up together than spread out. Of course a side-effect is it would shift the incentive to invade from small regions to large regions, which may or may not be a good thing.

Potentially the Founder can appoint a "chain" of Successors in case the chosen Successor has CTEd. There are some questions to ask around details of this, e.g

I'm thinking have a list where if someone is the founder they can edit the order of succession below them, and the highest nation on the list acts as the region executive if the founder is no longer in the region. Also allow nations to "retire" while acting as executive, which would simply remove them from the list and instate the person next on the list as the acting executive - retired nations could be added to the list by the current executive.

I am leaning towards thinking that regions must be one or the other, because Autocracy is basically Current Situation++. There's no downside to it, and there's no obligation to appoint Successors. So really "Autocracies" aren't so much a new feature - "Democracies" are, and then non-Democracies get "Successors".

This. I think succession should just be a new feature available to existing regions.

What about current regions?

I think just let founderless regions continue as they are. Any switching should be left up to the founder, if they return.

I am more inclined to say no to this now, or at most make it a one-way ticket from Autocracy to Democracy. There's no going back afterwards.

Edit: I initially was opposed to any switching, but honestly it's not that big a deal. One-way switching from Autocracy to Democracy makes perfect sense and meets my expectations.

Sedgistan wrote:It's been suggested that an element of revamping recruitment be incorporated into this change, basically to give nations a choice of where they go before the recruitment TGs flood in. This would be a page at the last step of nation creation that lets nations choose from a selection of eligible regions for their nation to be founded in. For the lazy/impatient, this could be skipped and you'd just end up somewhere random.


I think this is something to worry about after this has been implemented.
Last edited by Galiantus III on Tue Jul 06, 2021 2:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Last objected by The World Assembly on Sun, January 21, 2018, at 9:05 pm, objected 16,999 times in total.
Frisbeeteria wrote:
For some reason I have a mental image of a dolphin, trying to organize a new pod of his fellow dolphins to change the course of a nuclear sub. It's entertaining, I'll give ya that.
Ballotonia wrote:
Testing is for sissies. The actual test is to see how many people complain when any change is made ;)

User avatar
Cormactopia Prime
Minister
 
Posts: 2753
Founded: Sep 21, 2016
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Cormactopia Prime » Tue Jul 06, 2021 1:49 pm

Galiantus III wrote:The names definitely need to be changed for the sake of clarity, because otherwise players will make decisions based on the real-world definitions, leading to them getting upset when they get unexpected results. We need very descriptive names.

To push back on this a little, making decisions you think will turn out one way only for it to turn out another way is part of the NationStates experience starting with the issues you answer. Much about this game isn't quite how it appears, by design. So I actually do think some non-democratic regions being Democracies and some democratic regions being Autocracies could be consistent with the somewhat topsy turvy nature of the game's sometimes extreme outcomes that are very much at odds with what one might expect. I'd be fine with the names being changed, but I'm just as fine keeping them.

Galiantus III wrote:I don't think switching of any kind is desirable. This should be a decision made by the founder on the region creation page, and the default setting should be Autocracy (name should probably be changed to keep from upsetting people though). If you allow switching, that means someone can found a region and keep it secure until it is large enough to have both security and new nation spawns when it makes the switch to democracy. These regions need to survive the refiner's fire of gameplay from infancy to deserve new nation spawns.

I vehemently disagree with this, unless we would allow already established regions to become Democracies during some initial period, and then after the initial period only allow regions to become Democracies at founding. It wouldn't be right to force all existing UCRs to be Autocracies when they never had this option, and moreover, it would very much undermine many of the goals of this proposal as the UCRs most involved with gameplay would continue to be untouchable Autocracies.
Cormac Skollvaldr

I've done some things and some stuff...

"Follow your arrow wherever it points." - Kacey Musgraves

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10764
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Jul 06, 2021 1:55 pm

I think the names 'democracy' and 'autocracy' are frankly, extremely misleading. You can have an autocratic founderless region just as you can have a democratic region with an executive founder.

Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Sanctaria
Issues Editor
 
Posts: 7674
Founded: Sep 12, 2008
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sanctaria » Tue Jul 06, 2021 1:56 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I think the names 'democracy' and 'autocracy' are frankly, extremely misleading. You can have an autocratic founderless region just as you can have a democratic region with an executive founder.

Yeah, agreed. It's easy to say "well with NS things aren't always as it seems" which is true but when it comes to nations deciding where to spawn potentially saying "here's a bunch of feeders, or here's a bunch of democracies, autocracies don't get to be here" is probably a bit too misleading.
Divine Federation of Sanctaria

Ideological Bulwark #258

Dr. Katherine Saunders ORD DSJ, Sanctarian Ambassador to the World Assembly
Author of:
GA#109 GA#133 GA#176 GA#201 GA#222 GA#297
Frisbeeteria wrote:Do people not realize that moderators can tell when someone is wanking?

Luna Amore wrote:Sanc is always watching. Ever vigilant.

User avatar
Comfed
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1184
Founded: Apr 09, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Comfed » Tue Jul 06, 2021 2:10 pm

I think that Autocracy should be the default for regions, and give founders the option to switch to Democracy at any time, but make this change irreversible.

User avatar
Fhaengshia
Secretary
 
Posts: 33
Founded: Apr 30, 2020
Anarchy

Postby Fhaengshia » Tue Jul 06, 2021 2:24 pm

If there's the requirement for regions to have 10 (or so) WA nations to be able to spawn like a feeder, then I feel it would make sense for regions to be able to change from "democracy" to "autocracy" when below this same threshold.

Also my 2c on new names:
Democracy: Co-operative Region, or something similar
Autocracy: Administered Region, or something involving "order"

User avatar
Morover
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1340
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Libertarian Police State

Postby Morover » Tue Jul 06, 2021 2:52 pm

Fhaengshia wrote:If there's the requirement for regions to have 10 (or so) WA nations to be able to spawn like a feeder, then I feel it would make sense for regions to be able to change from "democracy" to "autocracy" when below this same threshold.

I'd second this; autocracies can switch to democracy anytime, democracies can switch back to autocracy if they are ineligible to spawn nations (with an exception being if they are embargoed).

I'd also love a new name for this feature, though I think autocracy/democracy works as a placeholder.
World Assembly Author
ns.morover@gmail.com

User avatar
Flanderlion
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1968
Founded: Nov 25, 2013
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Flanderlion » Tue Jul 06, 2021 3:13 pm

Looks good. I'll probably have a lot more to say later, but for now the glaring thing is about passwords. I think visible passwords should be able to be set, just that if the region has an active password it no longer is eligible for spawning.

Saw the TG recruitment buffs/penalties were removed, and tbh after seeing the competitiveness of the current situation they weren't necessary and just added complexity.

I personally also think the WA delegate if the region has been without a founder for a year (including GCRs) should be able to become democracies but that's a design decision.

For Autocracy - I think once the old founder CTEs, it starts off a 4 day timer that unless the Founder refounds during that time, the Founder authority permanently goes to their successor. If the successor wants to appoint their own successor, that successor has to approve it. Then if either the founder decides to give up power, or they CTE, the timer is started and again is irreversible once complete.

So a Founder chooses their successor, and their successor has to accept the burden. Once accepted, the timer starts (I said 4 as the time of an embassy and an accidental CTE only lasts a day or two generally, and not too much damage can be done in 4 days) and if it completes, the successor has absolute power.

--

Only thing not being addressed is RMB activity. I think new nations need access to a super active chat when they start the game. Feeder RMBs aren't at the level of what new players expect when joining a game, but they're light years ahead activity wise in comparison to other regions.

I proposed a global chat in the form of an association (which is already coded to my knowledge) to address this. People were concerned about moderating it etc. but having somewhere where they can be involved with constant activity (rather than hit and miss with UCRs) I think significantly outweighs that.
As always, I'm representing myself.
Information
Wishlist

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 20219
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Tue Jul 06, 2021 3:14 pm

I was going to hold out for the existence of a "status quo" middle ground, but now i see that you have made your 'Autocracy category (I agree with several other players who have already commented here, that label has to go...) more of that -- dropping a restriction that your earlier draft would have imposed -- anyway.
For a possible 'founder successor' system, there's a post by me somewhere in this forum in which I gave a detailed suggestion: I'll try to find that post tomorrow, and provide a link to it in this thread for your & other people's consideration, if nobody else provides that link first.

Even if this basic concept of yours is introduced, however, with a proportion of new nations spawning in the newly-defined "democracies", I would hope strongly for a revised recruitment system that also gives the other regions a more effective way of advertising themselves than they currently possess: Otherwise, these changes would probably be harmful in the [medium to] long run to the non-GP-oriented regions.
The Confrederated Clans (and other Confrederated Bodys) of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152, 1474.

User avatar
Lord Dominator
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7049
Founded: Dec 22, 2016
Corporate Police State

Postby Lord Dominator » Tue Jul 06, 2021 3:48 pm

Bears Armed wrote:I was going to hold out for the existence of a "status quo" middle ground, but now i see that you have made your 'Autocracy category (I agree with several other players who have already commented here, that label has to go...) more of that -- dropping a restriction that your earlier draft would have imposed -- anyway.
For a possible 'founder successor' system, there's a post by me somewhere in this forum in which I gave a detailed suggestion: I'll try to find that post tomorrow, and provide a link to it in this thread for your & other people's consideration, if nobody else provides that link first.

Even if this basic concept of yours is introduced, however, with a proportion of new nations spawning in the newly-defined "democracies", I would hope strongly for a revised recruitment system that also gives the other regions a more effective way of advertising themselves than they currently possess: Otherwise, these changes would probably be harmful in the [medium to] long run to the non-GP-oriented regions.

My first impression is to restrict recruitment in some manner for democracies (with autocracy remaining as-is).

User avatar
Papercuts and Skittles
Attaché
 
Posts: 74
Founded: Feb 03, 2006
Father Knows Best State

Postby Papercuts and Skittles » Tue Jul 06, 2021 3:53 pm

It'll be interesting to see how the 50/50 split for dispersion would be parcelled out. I'm gonna call it now, you're going to stick the GCRs with just card farmers or whoever else has the same e-mail, IP address, etc... As a pre-existing nation or whatever notion they come up with game side.

User avatar
Weed
Diplomat
 
Posts: 862
Founded: Oct 23, 2011
Anarchy

Postby Weed » Tue Jul 06, 2021 4:18 pm

Autocracy term is fine, and correct. Currently all foundered regions are autocracies, the fact certain founders don't choose to use that power for a while doesn't mean it isn't there. And one day, the founder may use that power and completely destroy the region or issue demands. They are autocracies, they always were, and there's nothing wrong with telling players the founder may one day decide he or she wants to close the region / change the region / etc and there is jack all anyone can do about it.
I prefer not to be called that
Ex-Defender
Former WASC Author
----V----
Weed
LIVE FREE

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Technical

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aektha, Lard Solus, Minus World, Trotterdam

Advertisement

Remove ads