NationStates Jolt Archive

It would be good if there was a rule not allowing founders to be ejected by delegates...or is there one already?

It's something of a self-correcting problem. Since a founder can access regional control even if he/she is not in the region, ejected founders can simply unban themselves, ban the offending Delegate, and return to the region.

Yeah, if you ban a founder, you'll soon be ridiculed. Founders can always get in, no matter what password you use. A founder don't have to guess, he/she simply takes off the pwd and ejects all who offended her/him. The founder doesn't even have to leave the RR for that. A founder can govern his/her regio from everywhere. :lol:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
CorinThe
The getting help section! (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=help) (for all your gaming problems)http://www.nationstates.net/forum/templates/subSilver/images/whosonline.gif
The Central Pacific (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region/region=the_central_pacific) (for The Pacific alternative.)

Plus the founder can kick as many people as they like from their region & not be called a griefer.

Plus the founder can kick as many people as they like from their region & not be called a griefer.

That is true and is something that I don't agree with...especially if it really is mass expulsion.

Plus the founder can kick as many people as they like from their region & not be called a griefer.

That is true and is something that I don't agree with...especially if it really is mass expulsion.

Well they made the region so if they don't want all those people there they are allowed to kick...consider it a perk.

Well they made the region so if they don't want all those people there they are allowed to kick...consider it a perk.

Agreed, though I do feel really sorry for people in cases where the region name has a direct real-world counterpart, so other people intuitively regard it 'their' region even when they shouldn't. Generally this is through nationality when a region bears the name of a real-world nation. Then if the Founder decides to use the region in a manner completely unrelated or opposite to its real-world counterpart, people can end up feeling deeply hurt and disenfranchised.

Ballotonia

True, though I have never observed this. I currently have 26 such "real-world" regions listed in my directory, and they have proven to be remarkably stable places.

It's something of a self-correcting problem. Since a founder can access regional control even if he/she is not in the region, ejected founders can simply unban themselves, ban the offending Delegate, and return to the region.

I could well be wrong, but isn't it a new rule that when the founder is ejected that the DEl actually gains control of the region. I believe when they get deleted that they can, may be wrong about if they get booted.

It's something of a self-correcting problem. Since a founder can access regional control even if he/she is not in the region, ejected founders can simply unban themselves, ban the offending Delegate, and return to the region.

I could well be wrong, but isn't it a new rule that when the founder is ejected that the DEl actually gains control of the region. I believe when they get deleted that they can, may be wrong about if they get booted.

That doesn't mean that the founder loses it's control though. He can still correct all by accessing control.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
CorinThe
The getting help section! (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=help) (for all your gaming problems)http://www.nationstates.net/forum/templates/subSilver/images/whosonline.gif
The Central Pacific (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region/region=the_central_pacific) (for The Pacific alternative.)

True, though I have never observed this. I currently have 26 such "real-world" regions listed in my directory, and they have proven to be remarkably stable places.
Maine, however, is very un-Mainelike.

It's something of a self-correcting problem. Since a founder can access regional control even if he/she is not in the region, ejected founders can simply unban themselves, ban the offending Delegate, and return to the region.

I could well be wrong, but isn't it a new rule that when the founder is ejected that the DEl actually gains control of the region. I believe when they get deleted that they can, may be wrong about if they get booted.

That doesn't mean that the founder loses it's control though. He can still correct all by accessing control.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
CorinThe
The getting help section! (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=help) (for all your gaming problems)http://www.nationstates.net/forum/templates/subSilver/images/whosonline.gif
The Central Pacific (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region/region=the_central_pacific) (for The Pacific alternative.)

Unless the invader is a native (ie, it is a coup in the region, not a typical invasion) and is given the ability to boot other nations as well. 1 update later, enter region dissolution, and enter the option for a new founder (of a new region techincially).

I admit, this is al unlikely to occur, tho not impossible. But, to the opposite, what is the advantage of being able to kick the founder?

The founder is given special rights, because he/she birthed it. They are given more abilities to help with it's devolpment. It seems just a short move to run the conclusion/possibility that the founder should be able to stand firm in his/her region regardless of what power movment ebbs and flows.

My own region (Spider's Island Nations of Aramir) is over 90 nations now. I am one of the most active members of the region, if I ever get justly ejected, I would leave and never return.
Reasons why a founder should stop being one:
1 = bad leadership by ejecting nations just for fun.
2 = Spamming mindlessly his own civil board.
3 = Paswording the region for long times, when there is no outside threat.
4 = Being inactive for long times or not communicating.
5 = Being founder of more than one region.

If one of these things is democraticly decided, it's another matter of course.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
CorinThe
The getting help section! (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=help) (for all your gaming problems)http://www.nationstates.net/forum/templates/subSilver/images/whosonline.gif
The Central Pacific (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region/region=the_central_pacific) (for The Pacific alternative.)

My own region (Spider's Island Nations of Aramir) is over 90 nations now. I am one of the most active members of the region, if I ever get justly ejected, I would leave and never return.
Reasons why a founder should stop being one:
1 = bad leadership by ejecting nations just for fun.
2 = Spamming mindlessly his own civil board.
3 = Paswording the region for long times, when there is no outside threat.
4 = Being inactive for long times or not communicating.
5 = Being founder of more than one region.

If one of these things is democraticly decided, it's another matter of course.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
CorinThe
The getting help section! (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=help) (for all your gaming problems)http://www.nationstates.net/forum/templates/subSilver/images/whosonline.gif
The Central Pacific (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region/region=the_central_pacific) (for The Pacific alternative.)

Well, I think these are fine reasons to take control away from Founders. I don't think it is consistent with the rest of the rules about foundershi-- which pretty much say the region belongs tot he founder, and everyone else is availble to come in and check it out.

Also, not every Founder may be as aactive to suspect such a move, tho it would be great if they were. All it takes is a coup (legal or otherwise) around update time.

If by coup around upsdate time you mean moving all nations out, as the founder is an absentee founder, then it is legal, if there is even one nation whom you evict to recreate the region then it is illegal and you could be deleted.

And, Ack, I thought that you were a crasher with sense. You know very well that it shall not change.

And not all founders are despotic or apethetic. I am very active, and have to date ejected one puppet of mine from the region as a test, as somebody was claiming that regional control was not working.

Peace, Truth, and Justice,
Luke,
President of the United Socialist States of Qaaolchoura,
Founder and Delegate, Zhaucauozian Friendship,
Hawk of the UN Proposals,
Pesterer of Enodia

If by coup around upsdate time you mean moving all nations out, as the founder is an absentee founder, then it is legal, if there is even one nation whom you evict to recreate the region then it is illegal and you could be deleted.

And, Ack, I thought that you were a crasher with sense. You know very well that it shall not change.


If you wish to now find me nonsensical, because of this thread, is both far within your rights and within a personal assurance of mine that you are not the first to find more a very silly if not misguided man. Or, rather, catfish. So, if that now be the case, guess we just have to grin and bear your perception of me.

As to the legality of such an action, I have never argues it was illegal. Quite the opposite. Actually, if you look at the thread, I am arguing why I don’t think it should be an option, but have in no way questioned the “fair-play” of such an action. I simply don’t see the plusses, tho I see the negatives, as I have listed them thus far.


And not all founders are despotic or apethetic. I am very active, and have to date ejected one puppet of mine from the region as a test, as somebody was claiming that regional control was not working.


I have never, nor would I suggest that all founders are despotic or apathetic. However, I am looking for the protection of those who are not savvy to protect themselves, as you seem capable of doing.

Either way, interesting this topic creeps forward one post at a time. I do think that there is some room to examine the fullness of founder rights, and to extend them as it is. Though, I understand, this does not seem to be your opinion.

Oh sorry. I reread the threads, and see what you meant in context. :oops:

Oh sorry. I reread the threads, and see what you meant in context. :oops:

It's cool ese (of course by "oops" you prob mean you can't beileve you eaver thought I had sence) :twisted: :D .