NationStates Jolt Archive

In the next couple of months our founder is going to become very inactive and away for long periods of time as he is involved with the military. This presents a problem for our region.

Is it possible to have another nation appointed founder of our region?

BuMp!

No. You will have to agree to leave the region, let it die at the next UN update, and re-create it. You will then have a new Founder. The Game Moderators no longer appoint new Founders.

Ahhhh crap!

Are you sure about this?

Mods???? Do you have anything to say?

Founders are the people who created the region.

In our particular case...... we had a founder appointed as the region was too old to have one.

When our current founder does become non active is it possible for the next most senior member to be appointed founder?

Moving everyone out of the region would be a problem because not everyone is extremely active and probably wouldn't move.

My region Mercia had a Founder appointed too. However, there has been a policy change since those wild early days. Moderators no longer appoint Founders.

You could always get your Delegate to eject any stragglers after sufficient notice (a week, say) has been given. The resulting new region would unfortunately be a lot smaller, but it will be more secure from invasion.

If the mods don't appoint founders then that looks like our only option...... :x

Why the sudden change of policy? It wasn't that long ago that our founder was appointed.

I believe the sudden change in policy came about in order to prevent any accusations of conflicts of interest, etc. I imagine it was decided that it is best not to get involved in regional politics, and provide technical advice and enforce clear rule violations only.

Actually, that was the original policy. We (er, the GM's) didn't hold close to that policy at first, but as most of the "old guard" regions were granted Founders it was felt that leniency was no longer appropriate.

So it is definate that we won't have another founder appointed?

And there no conflict of interests in my region.

Seeing that this is the Umpteenth request of this sort and everytime for the last months (what 6 months now?) the answer has been the same.

If you suspect that this is just because your region, feel free to look at other threads in this forum, as well as investigating the source of the elusive word "Founder."

Yeah, I would say this is final. Just leave and recreate and you will be fine though.

I see.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I think that switching founders is a pretty good idea, especially if the founder has died or been deleted.

This might just be a salutary lesson in ways of keeping your region safe. Far be it from me to say "this is what you're going to have to do", but it seems like a good idea to at least allow UN Delegates to have access to the regional controls so that they can act like a Founder if the need arises.

But....... delegates can be overthrown.

It is rather a Catch-22, isn't it.

Yes . . . but if the Delegate in question is a reliably active one, and logs on twice a day, including once close to the UN update, then there are no worries. At one time, I (my UN nation) had 14 griefers in the region, I was watching them coming in every hour, and I could not have the satisfaction of booting them because the Founder had denied me Regional Controls and gone off into the sunshine. So maybe it is a question of having the right (wo)man in power.

I suggest picking your region carefully, and having a good relationship with your founder when they are active-- so if they phase out or start to phase out you can contact them to give you access to the Del.

Again, you can always leave and then recreate the region. The founder is the mamma or the pappa of the region, and it is set up so their vision of the region is how it is shaped. So, if they don't think a UN Del should have powers, it won't. One of the problems with founders.

A change in this rule might be more flexible, but at the moment thats the way the cookie crumbles.

TG, as to the problem with the greifers. You should have reported the griefers to the mods when you were UN DEl. It is against the rules to grief, and they would have helped regardless of the UN DEL access.

One way I've seen of handling this issue, is to have the Founder be a non-UN puppet shared by only the most trusted long-time region members.

That way there's multiple people who can perform Founder (Region Control) duties, while the elected Delegate is what it was originally: a political leader for the region.

Ballotonia

TG, as to the problem with the greifers. You should have reported the griefers to the mods when you were UN DEl. It is against the rules to grief, and they would have helped regardless of the UN DEL access.
But no rule-breach took place. They entered with the intention of griefing, but left empty-handed. There was nothing to report, other than the fact that an attempt had been made, and I figured that would only clog the system.

TG, as to the problem with the greifers. You should have reported the griefers to the mods when you were UN DEl. It is against the rules to grief, and they would have helped regardless of the UN DEL access.
But no rule-breach took place. They entered with the intention of griefing, but left empty-handed. There was nothing to report, other than the fact that an attempt had been made, and I figured that would only clog the system.

Actually, I wonder if you meant they were "crashers" or "invaders" then. "Griefers" are against the rules.

Sorry, as a crasher, it becomes disaponting when words of very different meaning are interchanged.

IfI am wrong, and they were some how actually greifers who simply didn't grief your region, sorry I am dense and did not understand the intent. IfI am right and you mean Invader V Griefer, please be clearer ont he issue.

Either way, thank you sai.

They were griefers, and they entered with the intention of griefing. However, they were denied access to Regional Controls. After they were ejected, they taunted us, saying that we were lucky, and that had they succeeded, our region would have ceased to exist. That is griefing. Region-crashing I understand, but it was not their agenda, and their history backs up that view.

Ahh, then I would say it was good indeed that you were able to deny the fools access to your region! :D