NationStates Jolt Archive

The question: Since older regions without founders can have a founder put in, can a new region volunteer to have its founder removed?
The reason: There are region crashers out there. They just want to have fun with it (for the most part). If they can form a split off from the other regions (only in terms of founders) which enables them to invade each other it could add a new and fun element to the game of nationstates. I think that if any region choses to crash then they should chose as well to open themselves up to crashing.

Not that I am a region crasher. I was and I know people who are. I think that this should take quite a bit of presure off those old regions constantly being invaded (a very small minority).

I believe that you can ask the mods for a new founder to be appointed.

Actually, this is an interesting idea. Possibly even taken to the extreme of adding a button to the founder's page that would allow him to clear the region's founder . . . .Hmmm . . . I need to think on this.

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

Hmm, how about just a button to disable the founders powers for a set period of time, perhaps with the ability to leave the deelgate powers alone,
or even return the delegate to old pre regional controls ability ( can modify the regional factbook only)

actually I would liek to beable to set my puppet regions so that the delegate can only access the ability to change the factbook, but not boot or ban.

Strangely enough I don't get this... :?

But I think it would be fine if a founder could choose another founder. I have encountered two examples of this, with big regions. The founder wanted to be changed, because he would not be active enough, and didn't want to eject everybody (because half of the nations would not return...)

PS. Shouldn't this be in technical?

My thoughts were to have the moderators change a region so that it would have no founder (the reverse of what most regions do which is getting a founder or just getting a new one) but if enough people support this idea then I would advise it as a game change (I know we already had one). Personally I wouldn't change the regional control powers as they add an element of strategy to invasion. That is that regions have to strike at a set time (right on). Former delegate comes back and says "Aw... No more regional control for me. Oh well.. Lets try to ground up some UN nations to combat this (this I might add is the honest way to get a invader out of your region)." It might also be a plus for NS in that it might get more UN members who are involved in the UN.

Wouldn't this have the effect of disrupting the non-RPing nations, opening them up to invasion by nations just wanting to wreck havock on their regions?

It'd be a founder power, just that.

Maybe I am confused on this, doesn't the founder have the power to ban nations?
Wouldn't that be a way to take over an entire region (which is not allowed in the rules)?

I'm talking about giving a founder a way to remove himself from power.

I like the idea. It could herald in an era where regional acquisition is participated in only between alliances that wish to participate. Heck, maybe even have some way to exempt regions from what would normally be called griefing so war could be played out to it's fullest extent.

Couldn't the founder just ... not do anything. They could also found the region with a puppet and set the password to a random string and let it die. Both of those seem like ways you could have inter-region-crasher wars without possibility of founder interuption.

-----
The Most Serene People's Republic of Naleth
"Life is a suicide mission"
Shameless Plug for Adelaide (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region/region=Adelaide)
Getting Help Page (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=help)
The Tech FAQ (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=81296)

Two comments:

- If a Founder chooses to not interfere in what goes on in a region, that is simple enough to do: enable delegate access and do nothing ever again.

- Considering that I've seen invader regions purposely recreate themselves to (re)gain a founder (Blue Moon, The Holy Alliance (twice now), Mercia) and other invader regions die or break up because their 'home turf' was not defensible without a founder (Imperial Empire, Ragnarok, etc... LONG list)... are there any invader regions out there that would actually USE this feature?!?

Ballotonia

It seems many of you don't really understand the issue at all. What it is a way to allow region crashers to invade each other there-by opening up a new element of play to nationstates should your region choose to do so. Some people may not have that good an understanding of the NS game. Founders have the power to boot nations and un-boot nations even when not in a region. Thus it is imposible to gain complete control of a region with an active founder. Thus in my mind making the idea of a regional delegate completely useless except for voting (just my opinion). Can we get a mods oppinion? I'd also like to know if its possible (check my origional post if you've just skimmed through the thread) to have a mod remove your founder. I would also like to say that it would be best if this idea were well spread among invader regions. Thats the only way we could have it create this new part of the game which I and I'm sure many others would love to see. I think its time NS put more emphasis on new gameplay and freedom in the game, and less of stopping griefers. The exception being spammers. Those guys are the most annoying people on earth.

Ballontonia make a good point. If region crashers want to do this they can just get their founders to do nothing.

I don't think this is even really an issue. There are plenty of regions out there for crashers to hit and founders expiring every day.

The problem is how nations who are happily roleplaying, carrying out a school project, or exploring issues can be defended from crashers. I don't think it's swung so far as to have quite reveresed the problem yet.

I think it'd would be a great idea.

It would help solve the flood of founder change requests you will get when all these older nations founders stop playing, and let a founder essentially hand over power to someone else.

Ballontonia make a good point. If region crashers want to do this they can just get their founders to do nothing.

I don't think this is even really an issue. There are plenty of regions out there for crashers to hit and founders expiring every day.

The problem is how nations who are happily roleplaying, carrying out a school project, or exploring issues can be defended from crashers. I don't think it's swung so far as to have quite reveresed the problem yet.

No. That WAS the problem. And it HAS in fact reversed the problem. It WAS reversed since several versions ago when the founder rule was implimented. There are as was stated by the mods at least 5 ways to get invaders out of your region. What is the best way to crash? There is only one: invade some region (likely a near empty shell) without a founder and hope he doesn't oppose of your taking control because if he does you might as well leave because either way your getting the boot. Sorry to pulsate with stressed emotions of disagreement. I'll cool down. Anyway the reason this is on the mod thread is to ask the mods if it is within their power and authority to do so. Maybe I should put some exclaimation marks on the title. I should also say that if this were possible then it should be put forward as a forum (the Crasher forum for example) or even a sticky on the nationstates forum since it might be useless as only a few regions would realy do it out of honour, while if it were accepted as something cool to do we could make a league and everything. As I said before it might open up a whole new element of gameplay on NS (if it were accepted). If not then I would also agree with Ballotonia completely.

Perhaps something like this could be implemented along with a function allowing the Founder to appoint someone else Founder?

I like the idea. It could herald in an era where regional acquisition is participated in only between alliances that wish to participate. Heck, maybe even have some way to exempt regions from what would normally be called griefing so war could be played out to it's fullest extent.

The problem with that is that the smarter region-crashers and offensive/defensive groups would choose not to handicap themselves in that way.

Thats why, as I said, it should be made into a part of the game like a league which is supported by the game's mods.

I think that a delegate being able to remove themself wouldn't be that useful, although there would be some situations. However, having the ability to temporarily disable foundership would, IMO, be VERY cool. If you were wanting to train up a deputy in your home region, you could disable your foundership for a couple of days and see if he could cope.

The trouble would be if the "home" team was losing, they could reinstate the founder and basically "take their ball and go home".

The trouble would be if the "home" team was losing, they could reinstate the founder and basically "take their ball and go home".Well, I mean, they could do that anyway.

OR you could set it so that they can't reinstate the founder until the time period is up.