NationStates Jolt Archive

OK, I am posting this here for two reasons. The first being that I need to know if it needs any edits before I propose it and the second is to find out whether or not it violates the no alteration of game mechanics rule. Please note for the latter that this is structured only as a petition that condemns the founder system, explains why it is killing the game and then dearly requests- note not requires- that the Admins get rid of the Founder System somehow.

So here it is:

Condemnation of the Founder System

The United Nations,

RECOGNISING that NationStates is suffering a decline in population, warfare and activity which is significantly to the detriment of all UN Member States;

ACKNOWLEDGING that the need for a system to protect against region griefing is now sufficiently provided by the Regional Influence system and that the need for Regional Founders is now functionally obsolete;

ACKNOWLEDGING that there was more inter-regional warfare in the pre-founder system, henceforth referred to as the Delegate System; than there is currently in the Founder System and that the Founder system was introduced primarily to prevent region griefing;

DEFINING Region Griefing as the term was defined under the pre-Regional Influence System Rules, the Founder System as the System of game mechanics and the rules associated with it whereby regions have Founders who hold power over their Regional Controls unhindered by Regional Influence, the Regional Influence System and the rules associated with it as the system of game mechanics whereby nations gain Regional Influence and United Nations Regional Delegates are limited of their use of Regional Controls by Regional Influence, the Delegate System as the original system where there were no Founders and no Regional Influence (the Old Delegate System) and the ideal system as expressed in this resolution where there are no Founders and Regional Influence (the New Delegate System), Inter-regional Warfare as the action of one region seizing the Delegacy of another, Feeder Regions as The East Pacific, the West Pacific, the North Pacific, the South Pacific and Lazarus with the exclusion of the Rejected Realms;

NOTING that this is merely an expression of the opinion of the United Nations and is not binding on the Moderators of NationStates or affecting the code of the Game Mechanics. The United Nations hereby ENACTS the following terms:

1. The United Nations RECOGNISES that the Founder System was originally created to prevent Region Griefing as the Founders could banject griefers from the region. However, the United Nations RECOGNISES that the Founder System failed in its purpose in that founderless regions were not protected and because Founders could become inactive and can choose not to protect their region. The United Nations also RECOGNISES that the Regional Influence was successful in protecting against region griefing because all regions were protected consistently and THEREFORE the Founder System is duly superseded in its function;

2. The United Nations RECOGNISES that the Old Delegate System included a large amount of inter-regional warfare which meant that a significant amount of activity and gameplay was dedicated to the planning of Invasions/Defending of regions and that this attracted a lot of nations to the United Nations and NationStates itself. The United Nations RECOGNISES that warfare between Founded Regions is mechanically impossible and that this reduces the fun associated with diplomacy as it is impossible to fulfil a declaration of war, and that it reduces the thrill of the Invasion/Defending of inter-regional warfare as emulation of the Old Delegate System is sought through the invasion of small unfounded regions which is less of a challenge and is not diplomatically essential. The United Nations NOTES that the Old Delegate System is not desirable because of the Region Griefing associated with it.

3. The United Nations RECOGNSISES that in the Old Delegate System regions were free to elect or orchestrate coups against Delegates and the regimes associated with them. The United Nations ACKNOWLEDGES that this added a significant political element to the game and NOTES that politics are a major attraction of players to the game which was lost with the Founder System as political regimes of the Delegates are only existent at the whim of the Founder. THEREFORE the United Nations NOTES that this has led to the decline in population and activity within NationStates.

4. THEREFORE the United Nations CONDEMNS the Founder System and URGES the Administration to implement the New Delegate System which would essentially replicate the situation of the Feeder Regions- the Delegate restricted by Regional Influence with no Founder- in every region.

Highly illegal. The UN is not the place to propose game changes.

So condemning the Founder System rather than actually ordering its scrapping is against the rules? Damn...I wasted 20 minutes....

Both are against the rules.

Personally, I agree that the Founder system stifles interregional war, and even affects internal politics (it's impossible to overthrow an "evil" Founder).

But the UN isn't the place for this.

:headbang: The rules ruin everything don't they?

Out of interest where can I petition the admins for a change in the rules?

Out of interest where can I petition the admins for a change in the rules?

Let's see, your goal is to eliminate the Founders, which would require a rewrite of the game's code. I'd say the tech forum is your best bet, but I wouldn't bother because the answer's going to be no.

Let's see, your goal is to eliminate the Founders, which would require a rewrite of the game's code. I'd say the tech forum is your best bet, but I wouldn't bother because the answer's going to be no.

Damn...oh well. I've always thought of Founders as evil but I guess it doesn't really matter. :P

So condemning the Founder System rather than actually ordering its scrapping is against the rules? Damn...I wasted 20 minutes....Yes you did. And even if condemning them was legal, what would that actually acomplish? It would be like shouting at a brick wall. I don't think the brick wall is going to be affected.

Yes you did. And even if condemning them was legal, what would that actually acomplish? It would be like shouting at a brick wall. I don't think the brick wall is going to be affected.

I proposed it because I hear that the Admins care about what the players think and take it logically. But it doesn't really matter.

I'm sure they do care - or they did the first dozen times people complained about the rules. I guess they get numb to the cries - you probably have to, or go insane.

Actually, that explains a lot. ;)

Well, with Founders, it's more a matter of, "We added these to the game for a reason, and the benefits vastly out-weigh the problems. We really don't want to go back."