NationStates Jolt Archive

Thought the mods should see the opinion of the NS players with the creation of 'founders' and their regional control powers.

Why should not someone who has put in the time and effort to create their own region and who chooses not to play the invasion game, have the security of staying there with people they choose to be with?

Why is it necessary for people to go into smaller regions and upset the apple cart?

There are plenty of people willing to play invasions -- they can be found in the Invasion Sandbox.

I feel very strongly about this. Yes: allow invasions among those who wish to play them; leave regions that are not interested alone.

Founders should have the ability to choose whom they associate with -- after all, you can't just kick someone's door in and walk inside... ;)

There have been accommodations made for both sides of this argument -- why try to remove them?

This poll sux. I like regional powers. That is the whole point of creating a huge region in the first place.

I have no interest at all in playing the Invasion Game.

One of my major colonies was recently a victim of region griefing by some spoilt little sh*t who decided that we were all "Taking the game too seriously" and booted the entire region. Needless to say, this was not a lot of fun for any of the Nations who had been in the region for nearly a year.

Prior to that our region was very happy and got on with everyone until the invader decided to wreck it.

As such, I vote against restricting the powers of Regional Founders...

Regional Founders also cut down on "innocent" UN Multis. Before Founders, the only way to modify a Fackbook was by being UN Delegate. If a person is in their own region, the only way to have a Delagate was to UN Multi. With Founders, a person can create their own region and Factbook without resorting to breaking the rules.

Also, the poll is largely pointless as the Mods' opinion on Founders has very little meaning: we didn't create them; we can't remove them. The Admin and Max decided to add Founders, and have shown no interest in removing them.

We should definetly keep the 'founder' mode. Do you all think we just sit around and say oh yeah, I created a region now I will just let everyone else do what they please w/ it? No, founders do a ton more. they have to manage regional affairs like recruiting, military, and alliances.

Sometimes they even build a forum. Then they have to manage that. I think the mods can agree w/ me here, managing a forum can be a pain.

Founders are a vital part of NS. Without founders, many of the regions we have specializing in particular fandoms or centered around particular aspects would not exist, taking away a large fanbase from the game.

I am the founder of my own region, which I centered on my only political beliefs and continue to watch grow before me. Sentimentally, I'd hate to not be able to create something of my own in this game that I can gather together with like-minded individuals.

I lobbied at one time for a option to forbid the Founder from being booted out maby a little check box that the founder can access via regional control, so that he can open up the region to allow invaders
or perhaps a manner of allowing Delegates to only access certain functions, like factbook and boot but not ban or password.

Generally, I like the way founders are given priority in regions, regardless of their UN status. This adds an unpredictable element to the game. It also encourages alliance building.

Having said that, over the last few weeks I have been a veteran of two regions whose founder is no longer in NS (or no longer should be -- He's got a DOS order on his head from NS moderators).

What of this situation?
I would welcome your replies and insights