NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, I have noticed in the "what's changed" list on the news page for version 1.7, and I saw that the delegate has access to regional control if the founder ceases to exist. I have an idea to add to that. The founder can create an official position inside regional control, that would give that person access. The offical position can be modified or deleted at any time by the founder. This would allow a group of people to stop invaders, instead of just the founder or delegate. Please tell me what you think.

Interesting idea. I'll run this by some other mods.

<---- Hopes that it eventually gets implemented. :twisted:

Very interesting idea. It could definetly be useful for regions with no founder to make sure there is always someone who can get rid of invaders. (Something my region is paranoid about, even though the closest thing we've had to an invasion was 3 people when delegate access was off ... we didn't even need to use the founder to get rid of them :twisted:)

I think, if this is to be done, you should only get one slot you can use.

Of course, you can always put a puppet in the slot who can be controlled by more than one person, so its not a huge deal or anything.

*bumps thread*

I know that you have a long memory Sal, but I wish to be sure.

Thanks for the bump. I'll start looking after New Year.

What do you think about immplementing it with a password? The founder and delegate have access by default, and the password is given out to the officials?

Thanks for the bump. I'll start looking after New Year.

What do you think about immplementing it with a password? The founder and delegate have access by default, and the password is given out to the officials?
Welcome and Thanks. :D

Can the password be changed by the founder (and the founder only, otherwise we would be dealing with passwords to change the password)?

And can the founder still bar the delegate regional control?

Can I just ask that region invading remain at least vaguely feasable without you having to rely on massive mismanagement by the founder/delegate?

Can I just ask that region invading remain at least vaguely feasable without you having to rely on massive mismanagement by the founder/delegate?
You *could* invade puppet regions.

There are a couple of imperialist Belgians attempting to take over Indonesia and Kenya, and I'v let them invade so far, keeping it to a war of words.

I think that in regions with a Founder, the delegate should never have access to the regional control. Instead, a Deputy-Founder could be appointed, who would have equal access to regional control. Naturally, this deputy founder could be Delegate as well.
I don't think that Founder-less regions should be able to have a Deputy-founder appointable by the delegate. This would make certain dictators even harder to oust.

Perhaps delegates should be permanently barred from the Founder controls (i.e. ejecting + banning + passwording). This would stop griefings once and for all.
The Rejected Realms manage fine without regional controls - Kandarin is a good delegate.

They manage fine by some standards, but I much, much prefer the Pacifics as a home rather then the RR (note my location, and yes, I do have puppets in all the feeders/sinks)... not to mention some player created regions without founders. I also disagree that delegates shouldn't have access to regional controls anywhere, some regions have inactive founders, or founders on vacation, etc.

Personally I'm all for the idea mentioned in the first post of this thread... but the passwording regional controls just gets a little too much for me - passwords leak so easily!!

I also disagree that delegates shouldn't have access to regional controls anywhere, some regions have inactive founders, or founders on vacation, etc.

So they can appoint a Deputy-Founder :P

Perhaps delegates should be permanently barred from the Founder controls (i.e. ejecting + banning + passwording). This would stop griefings once and for all.And also any fun for people who lik region crashing, but thats just collatoral damage, eh?

Region crashing is a legitimate part of the game. I really don't think this should change.

Perhaps delegates should be permanently barred from the Founder controls (i.e. ejecting + banning + passwording). This would stop griefings once and for all.And also any fun for people who lik region crashing, but thats just collatoral damage, eh?

Region crashing existed way before regional controls. Some of the invader groups thought Founders etc. would be the end of them.

Perhaps delegates should be permanently barred from the Founder controls (i.e. ejecting + banning + passwording). This would stop griefings once and for all.And also any fun for people who lik region crashing, but thats just collatoral damage, eh?

Region crashing existed way before regional controls. Some of the invader groups thought Founders etc. would be the end of them.Fine then, you're just going back to how it was before, its still not an improvement.

Perhaps delegates should be permanently barred from the Founder controls (i.e. ejecting + banning + passwording). This would stop griefings once and for all.And also any fun for people who lik region crashing, but thats just collatoral damage, eh?

Region crashing existed way before regional controls. Some of the invader groups thought Founders etc. would be the end of them.Fine then, you're just going back to how it was before, its still not an improvement.

...No. You'd have Founders who could now appoint a deputy, and region invaders can't possibly grief. Where's the problem?

Oh, I should also note that I think if the original Founder ceases to exist, the deputy should automatically become Founder. A sort of hereditary system.

...No. You'd have Founders who could now appoint a deputy, and region invaders can't possibly grief. Where's the problem?

Oh, I should also note that I think if the original Founder ceases to exist, the deputy should automatically become Founder. A sort of hereditary system.How could you hold a region for more than a day?

...No. You'd have Founders who could now appoint a deputy, and region invaders can't possibly grief. Where's the problem?

Oh, I should also note that I think if the original Founder ceases to exist, the deputy should automatically become Founder. A sort of hereditary system.How could you hold a region for more than a day?

Ask the Atlantic and others.

Oh, I should also note that I think if the original Founder ceases to exist, the deputy should automatically become Founder. A sort of hereditary system.
I think that the deceased founder should still be listed, and the deputy founder would become acting founder, capable of appointing a new deputy, but if the acting founder died, then the name would be replaced by the new deputy, or else removed.

My 2/144ths of a drachauq.

Of course I like the idea of officials, or RC password, as long as the answers to my two questions just below Salusa's are "YES" and "YES".

First, I should let you know that I don't think that this is going to happen.

Second, I'm still playing with many ideas of how to do this.

First, I should let you know that I don't think that this is going to happen.

Second, I'm still playing with many ideas of how to do this.
Aren't those statements contradictory? :?

No, I think that it is an interesting idea, and one that I will consider and play with, but also one that I don't think will be implemented in the end.

No, I think that it is an interesting idea, and one that I will consider and play with, but also one that I don't think will be implemented in the end.

Just turn on the old Sal charm and [violet] will implement it for sure :D











We're doomed

No, I think that it is an interesting idea, and one that I will consider and play with, but also one that I don't think will be implemented in the end.
Pretty Please? :-)

Well, one thing (possibly) counting against it will be that I recently submitted a change to regional control (successors) to [violet] and we're waiting to see if it is implemented.

Well, one thing (possibly) counting against it will be that I recently submitted a change to regional control (successors) to [violet] and we're waiting to see if it is implemented.

Cool. 8)

I think this is agood idea for completely doing away with invasions (or all but doin away with them). But, as they are part of legitmate game play, I don't se how it heigtens dynamics at all. The natives allready hold the winning hand, its just a matter of how they play. Giving them all teh resources would sort of turn this into the Special Olympics in my opion,making alomost any way you play a winner (as long as you aren't invading).

PS- I am in no way making fun of SO, which is a fine orginazation. Simply making an analogy.

PSS- Most people hate the fact that invaders are legal, so I know I am only helping support by going against it, but thought I would voice my O regardless.

Ackbar, you have hit directly upon one of the primary reasons why I don't think that this will be implemented. Invasions are legal, and we have no intentions of changing that fact, either in the rules, or de facto.

http://www.weirdozone.0catch.com/projects/nationstates/salusasecondus/salusasecondus2.jpg
SalusaSecondus
Tech Modling

Ackbar, you have hit directly upon one of the primary reasons why I don't think that this will be implemented. Invasions are legal, and we have no intentions of changing that fact, either in the rules, or de facto.

http://www.weirdozone.0catch.com/projects/nationstates/salusasecondus/salusasecondus2.jpg
SalusaSecondus
Tech Modling
*phew*

Admittedly, I think that invaders are generally damn clever and can very often get into regions that look locked down pretty damn tight, but making it more difficult is not a good idea.

One thing that regions have tried doing recently for their own security is moving everyone to a new region with a puppet as the founder, a puppet that 5 or 6 different people can control. It makes invasion literally impossible beyond capturing the delegacy for about five minutes.

Invasions existed long before Regional Controls were implemented.

How could you hold a region for more than a day?

Eject the deputy.

Also, nothing would change with the delegate, this would be in addition to the existing system.

How about the regional control allowed to the deputy is diffrent, allowing you to do diffrent and sometimes less things? There should be more than one slot you can use with diffrent authority as to what they can access.

How could you hold a region for more than a day?

Eject the deputy.

Also, nothing would change with the delegate, this would be in addition to the existing system.Ah, yes, good idea. Deputy only has regional control while in the region, although doesn't lose the position if he/she leaves. Puts the position somewhere between founder (keep position and powers if he leaves the region) and delegate (loses both position and powers if he leaves the region)

I think this is a good idea. A deputy and a founder would make regions who want to keep out invasions but allow free passage much more secure.
I also think the system of hereditary foundership should stay. If the Founder ceases to exist, the deputy becomes Founder.
Deputy delegates shouldn't be allowed, because this would mean that dictatorships (The Pacific) would be even easier to maintain.

If theres no founder, should the deputy be appointed in another way?

If theres no founder, should the deputy be appointed in another way?

I think there should only be a deputy if the region has a Founder to start with.

I ment to say the deputy loses position when he leaves, just like the delegate. His position would just go away unless he gets re-appointed by the founder. What I am trying suggest ultimately, is just having the process of regional control re-worked with multiple nations that hold selective powers, not just one nation. This would create checks and balances in the gov. of the region.

I ment to say the deputy loses position when he leaves, just like the delegate. His position would just go away unless he gets re-appointed by the founder. What I am trying suggest ultimately, is just having the process of regional control re-worked with multiple nations that hold selective powers, not just one nation. This would create checks and balances in the gov. of the region.Wouldn't the founder still have ultimate control though?

Ok, the founder of a new region could have the option of having traditional gov. (Delegate and founder) or the new style I will describe here.

Founder:
Can eject and ban anyone in the region, can change wfb entry, appoints deputy. Looses control when he is ejected. (see deputy)

Delegate:
has power to eject and ban anyone in the region. Can change wfb entry. Power can be suspended by founder.

Deputy (whatever the founder decides to call him):
can eject all nations except founder, can change wfb entry. Power can be suspended by founder, will inherate the founder position if the founder is ejected or deleted.

After a region is created and gains more nations, the founder can form this style gov. with an option on his regional control page. Please give me your thoughts and suggestions.

Yeah, that sounds about right. On the Regional Control there could just be a tick box for 'Region Deputy' and a text box next to it to allow the Founder to appoint the deputy. ONLY the Founder should be allowed to appoint a deputy.

The deputy has to be a nation in the region and they shouldn't be able to enter regional control when they're not in the region. If they are outside of the region when the game updates, they should have their position as deputy revoked, so even if they return to the region they are powerless until the Founder re-instates them. This way, if the deputy leaves the region just for a couple of minutes to post something on another region's board, they don't lose their position, but if they move to another region permanently, they lose power.

In the event of the Founder ceasing to exist, or being deleted, the deputy should become Founder.

There should be some way of preventing the Founder from making a puppet of theirs the deputy. If they break the rules and get deleted, they should lose Foundership of their region.

Yep. The only thing wrong with the balance of power I described is that it can be corrupted by some well disguised puppets.

Willing to continue this discussion, but did not see coment to what I posted and Salsa agreed with-- not that you need to comment on this, but that seems to be the main hesitation. Just for me, would rather see justification as well as talk on the dynamics for such a set-up.

I agree, deputy should get the founder position if the founder ceases to exist. Anything else I should add? How about some sort of election system?

BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP!

I agree, deputy should get the founder position if the founder ceases to exist. Anything else I should add? How about some sort of election system?
I don't think that the deputy should inherit the position even if the founder dies permenately (and definately not from founder's eviction), but rather I think that the fouder should still be listed, and should the founder die, or leave the region for the UN update, the deputy(or if there is more than one, the senior deputy, which can be fixed by de-deputyfying the the older deputies to make one's new favorite most senior) will become "acting founder" unless founder returns.

For those bumping it, I think the following was sort of the problem with this:


Ackbar, you have hit directly upon one of the primary reasons why I don't think that this will be implemented. Invasions are legal, and we have no intentions of changing that fact, either in the rules, or de facto.

http://www.weirdozone.0catch.com/projects/nationstates/salusasecondus/salusasecondus2.jpg
SalusaSecondus
Tech Modling


As you continued the technicalities of what you would like, I mentioned you might want to respond to this issue days after the post above, actually, but you didin't-- which is fine. Still, if you don't deal with this speedbump, don't expect everything to be glossy and covered. Likely the problwm with it, is the problem that was pointed out.

It is an interesting idea, and I am glad there are others ( A modling even) who agree this is a big negative.

I believe that there is the possibility of successors in the future of this game, so if a founder dies of natural causes, the region is not left unprotected. However, I do not see us enabling deputies. If you want another nation to have access to the region control, give them your password.


http://www.weirdozone.0catch.com/projects/nationstates/salusasecondus/salusasecondus2.jpg
SalusaSecondus
Tech Modling
PGP: 0x0604DF3E