NationStates Jolt Archive

Salusa said on the IRC interview that we had with him that there mightbe regional sucessors. He said I culd start a thread on it which I delayed doing for a week, and long as I mentioned that it is not guarented to happen.

So here are my thoughts:

Having a successor replace the founder will probably easier to code, but it will open up some new problems.

What if the founder returns and wants his region back?

What if the founder appoints a successor who appoints another sucessor, and then the original founder returns, and the new founder bans the founder from the region?

Also, because the fonders name would be replaced, some founders might chose not to appoint a sucessor solely to keep their name in place.

My thought is this:

Acting Founders

Acting founders would have full founder powers, but would have a new slot in the region heading if the founder dies "acting founder", and a new entry in the XML feed while the founder remains in place. Acting founders could appoint new acting founders, but all acting fonders would be temporary, removed on the return of the founder.

Also moderation wise, moderators always say that the founder is the one who founded the region and that is why they have absolute authority. Since the acting founder will not have fouded the region, but they are appointed by the ones who did, perhaps their rights should lie somewhere between foundership and delegacy (eg, they can't ban natives in the region before they assumed their founderhsip or "naturalized" aftter a certain number of months, but they can avoid distributing the password to natives they do not evict from the region)?


How does this idea sound?

I like it. I'm not sure if I understand it exactly, but it matches my idea that a Regional Controls can create a little cabinate of nations that can update the fact book entry, but aren't founders. So I think it's a grand idea! Would this apply for nations where the founder died though?

What about founderless regions?

sounds like a very good idea

well the way I se it , if the founder appoints a succesor, and leaves, then he has lost the region,
now if the succesor wants to appoint the previous founder ash his successor, then he has a chance at it.

if you give it away, it is gone, dont be an welcher.

One quick note, founders has become a tad less likely for the immediate future. It still may happen, but other (more critical) stuff has moved to the front of my task-list.

As far as the ideas go, I'm reading them, but withholding judgement for now.

In having the successors would this prevent invasions of that region?

In having the successors would this prevent invasions of that region?Not entirely. It would prevent some invasions and all permenate invasions, but not all, or likely even most raids. I've noticed that in most regions the founders are fairly inactive. If they leave delegate access to regional control on and have an apathetic founder, it would be perfectly possible to stage raids.

Bear in mind that my idea is simply a variant of the original idea which was to allow founders to be replaced with new founders. And as Blackbird pointed out, founderless regions would still need mod appointments (I'm suprised that nobody's given TPC a founder yet).

In having the successors would this prevent invasions of that region?Not entirely. It would prevent some invasions and all permenate invasions, but not all, or likely even most raids. I've noticed that in most regions the founders are fairly inactive. If they leave delegate access to regional control on and have an apathetic founder, it would be perfectly possible to stage raids.

Bear in mind that my idea is simply a variant of the original idea which was to allow founders to be replaced with new founders. And as Blackbird pointed out, founderless regions would still need mod appointments (I'm suprised that nobody's given TPC a founder yet).

Spoffin Votes No

Spoffin Votes NoNo to my ideas, or no to sucessors in general? And could you please give a reason if it's in repsonse to my ideas Spof?

the idea sounds cool, but i think it would end up proving to be one-sided, hurting the invading part of the game. Sure it can still occur, but the number of regions who would have no founder acting would decrease dramatically. This would make for much less targets for invaders to go after, thus somewhat unfair to nations who pay enough attention to the game to not get deleted for inactivity.

I do think it's a fresh idea, but what if the successor can only take acting founder status when the founder is deleted for breaking the rules, but can't take acting founder status if the founder just dies out of inactivity. I think this would reward those who continually play the game, but then again if the founder is deleted for breaking the rules, then why should their region be allowed to continue to have a founder? it would probably have to be situational.

another way to look at it, maybe a founder can hand off founder-ness if he/she knows they won't be playing the game anymore or not much anymore, but if they die out, they die out, it would be their responsibility to hand over the region and if they dont, no founder is instated.

Lots goin on up there, lol. leeme hear what ya think.

Spoffin Votes NoNo to my ideas, or no to sucessors in general? And could you please give a reason if it's in repsonse to my ideas Spof?I don't like the idea of sucessors period. I think it would kill gameplay.