NationStates Jolt Archive

My region's founder died over a year and a half ago. I think that, in regions like mine, a founder who has been in office for over 50 days (or something like that) should be granted all powers of the founder. For example, the delegate would be able to ban and eject anyone.
A region like mine is not really able to re-found, as there are over 30 member, most of whom are new.
This kind of region is permanently handicapped because its founder is dead. I do not think that this is very fair. Please consider my request.

No. There's too much room for abuse in the scenario you desire.

No. There's too much room for abuse in the scenario you desire.In what way? The delegate would not be able to abuse any more than a founder would.

If you would raise your request to 75 days,

The Government of Globius would respectfully agree.

No. There's too much room for abuse in the scenario you desire.
In what way? The delegate would not be able to abuse any more than a founder would.
The system can be very easily abused by those who conduct regional invasions. Under your proposal, invaders who managed to hold a region for 50 days (or whatever) would have permanent, uncontestable ownership of the region.

If this comes up for discussion amongst the NationStates Moderators, then I will strongly recommend against this idea. I intend no offense towards you, but I do not believe that anyone on the NationStates staff will take this seriously.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

The Supreme COmmander of Elves Springs agrees that a new founder must take office, but with the condition that the new founder is unanimously voted in. No special concessions to be granted or used as a bribe to allow special interest groups to have the run of the show.

The system can be very easily abused by those who conduct regional invasions. Under your proposal, invaders who managed to hold a region for 50 days (or whatever) would have permanent, uncontestable ownership of the region.

If this comes up for discussion amongst the NationStates Moderators, then I will strongly recommend against this idea. I intend no offense towards you, but I do not believe that anyone on the NationStates staff will take this seriously.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game ModeratorI'm unfamiliar with the politics of invasions, but I thought that an invader delegate would generally become a native after 50 days. Anyway, if they have held a region for 50 days, is there much hope for a rebellion? And, this "time limit" adds some pressure to the invasion/defense idea.

Although I am supremely grateful to Cogitation for allowing me the title of internally-elected native delegate of North Atlantic, I must agree with the post in favour of establishing some framework for creating an appropriate process for resolving native status and the foundership. It doesn't necessarily have to be the original proposal, which I agree has flaws.

Presently, when the moderators get involved with regional disputes, the mods need an intense amount of scrutiny in order to resolve it. If there was an agreed on process (whatever that may be), then that amount of intensity would be reduced since the mods could simply refer back to the process. An example of this already in use is the process which the mods use to determine native delegates. The mods simply check who has the most native endorsements, and if that person is the delegate, then the delegate is a native delegate.

Having a process to determine who is founder makes sense because it would stabilize the region if that region lacks a founder. Having a founder reduces the threat of the region being invaded, because it gives the region a potential second chance for the controls to be applied. Having a founder also reduces the threat of the region being griefed, since a founder can eject an elected delegate.

Also, I would like to respectfully suggest that the present rules, the way they are written and applied, may in fact promote griefing. If a player really, really wants to be a founder of a region, and the natives won't let him, then all s/he has to do is grief and re-found. I understand that the mods won't generally permit this. However, a griefer may not know or not care that the mods could re-set a region after a griefing and do it anyways.

The history of North Atlantic also seems to indicate that founderless regions are targets of invader groups. We had some invaders in our region not some time ago, and the on-going threats we receive from a well-established invader group presently prevents us from taking down our secure password. If we had a founder in the region, we would be able to disregard completely their words and actions and to open the region to new nations.

I'm unfamiliar with the politics of invasions, but I thought that an invader delegate would generally become a native after 50 days. Anyway, if they have held a region for 50 days, is there much hope for a rebellion? And, this "time limit" adds some pressure to the invasion/defense idea.


an invader delegate (theoratically) never becomes a native, although i think he would if he gets enough native support (not sure on this though, it could be played so that he forces natives to endorse him or face expulsion....coggy?)

as to the rest of your post..

yes, there are very stubborn and determined people who play this game :D

and there is already enough pressure on this side of the game already, especially with the random update times..

Although I am supremely grateful to Cogitation for allowing me the title of internally-elected native delegate of North Atlantic, I must agree with the post in favour of establishing some framework for creating an appropriate process for resolving native status and the foundership. It doesn't necessarily have to be the original proposal, which I agree has flaws.

i think any ruleset in which you define "native" too clear is open for abuse and will have flaws in it..
also, this would reduce the number of founderless regions to (almost) zero, effectively killing the invasionside of this game.
another thought is...what if the old founder returns and revives his nation and wants foundership of "his" region?

Presently, when the moderators get involved with regional disputes, the mods need an intense amount of scrutiny in order to resolve it. If there was an agreed on process (whatever that may be), then that amount of intensity would be reduced since the mods could simply refer back to the process. An example of this already in use is the process which the mods use to determine native delegates. The mods simply check who has the most native endorsements, and if that person is the delegate, then the delegate is a native delegate.

not always are they hard to figure out, regional happenings and xml feeds are handy, and of course a lot of invaders love to boast too :p
and again, this system/proces would be open to abuse..

Having a process to determine who is founder makes sense because it would stabilize the region if that region lacks a founder. Having a founder reduces the threat of the region being invaded, because it gives the region a potential second chance for the controls to be applied. Having a founder also reduces the threat of the region being griefed, since a founder can eject an elected delegate.

yes, but invaders like to play the game too :p
also, a founder doesn't always mean that your region can't be griefed.
some founders forget to block regional controls, and some forget that when the founder is out the region, regional controls automatically open up for the delegate.

Also, I would like to respectfully suggest that the present rules, the way they are written and applied, may in fact promote griefing. If a player really, really wants to be a founder of a region, and the natives won't let him, then all s/he has to do is grief and re-found. I understand that the mods won't generally permit this. However, a griefer may not know or not care that the mods could re-set a region after a griefing and do it anyways.

which would be pretty dumb.
the rules state pretty clear that clearing ou a region is illegal, i believe it's even mentioned in the FAQ.
refounding would be useless, cause the mods would just take away the founder, problem solved.
of course there will always be kids who like ruining other people's fun, but not much can be done to change that..


The history of North Atlantic also seems to indicate that founderless regions are targets of invader groups. We had some invaders in our region not some time ago, and the on-going threats we receive from a well-established invader group presently prevents us from taking down our secure password. If we had a founder in the region, we would be able to disregard completely their words and actions and to open the region to new nations.

yes, founderless regions are targets.
you could make sure you have a delegate who is awake during the update.
and get to know some of the defendergroups who have intell on invaderplans and UN nations to defend regions with.
it's part of the game ;)

think any ruleset in which you define "native" too clear is open for abuse and will have flaws in it..

in all due respect, nothing is perfect, and just because not everyone can agree a definition is perfect is not a reason to reject the idea of pursuing a better definition. ideally, a decision about this would be made democratically so any flaws would be the result of the will of the people.

another thought is...what if the old founder returns and revives his nation and wants foundership of "his" region?

That's a good point. The conceivability of such a scenario to many people is really what appears to be driving the need to set out some process that defines when a new founder may replace a deceased founder.

yes, but invaders like to play the game too

But what about the strong likelihood that people are invading simply to gain control of a particular region. Perhaps they don't intend to build empires of invaded regions. Instead, what if all they wish to do is become the sole and undisputed ruler of a particular region? Why do the same rules apply to the DEN or Invaders as they might some guy on the street who just wants to be the leader of Region X?

It just seems logical that after a certain amount of time, invaders become natives and ought to be entitled to such status and consideration. It's a good point when it's pointed out that both of these issues are related and ought to be considered together rather than separately.

If you want a historical example, look at Celtic Britain. There were Celtic tribes (for example, the Belgae) who were invaders of Britain slightly before Caesar's invasion of Britain. The Belgae originated from Celtic Gaul, they pacified large chunks of southern and coastal Britain and introduced Iron Age C. In fact, they often subjugated the peoples they conquered into a class system with themselves at the top of it. The Belgae actually were aligned with the Romans when Caesar came around 50 BC and helped the Romans when Claudius invaded Britain in 50AD.

A similar comparison can be made to the Anglos and Saxons at the end of the Roman occupation. The Romans allowed in the Anglos and Saxons who helped them occupy the island and oppress the Britons. After the Romans left, the Anglos and Saxons stayed, and the Britons largely lost out.

in all due respect, nothing is perfect, and just because not everyone can agree a definition is perfect is not a reason to reject the idea of pursuing a better definition. ideally, a decision about this would be made democratically so any flaws would be the result of the will of the people.

since when is this place a democracy? :p

and what "people"?



That's a good point. The conceivability of such a scenario to many people is really what appears to be driving the need to set out some process that defines when a new founder may replace a deceased founder.



But what about the strong likelihood that people are invading simply to gain control of a particular region. Perhaps they don't intend to build empires of invaded regions. Instead, what if all they wish to do is become the sole and undisputed ruler of a particular region? Why do the same rules apply to the DEN or Invaders as they might some guy on the street who just wants to be the leader of Region X?

and where will the line be drawn? one region? two regions?
there is still a lot of room for abuse in this. invaders have plenty of puppets, and i could think of a number of ways to keep delegacy a long time, and even have soldiers do it for me, so i could become the founder of a region. this soldier would be the guy who would control empire X, i give him some fancy title, and viola, he becomes founder in time. easy way to get an empire.

It just seems logical that after a certain amount of time, invaders become natives and ought to be entitled to such status and consideration. It's a good point when it's pointed out that both of these issues are related and ought to be considered together rather than separately.

or maybe that is because the original natives have been chased away by the invaders, and really it is easy to hold a region for quite some time..
i know, i have done so in the past ;)

I'm only responding to this one part; I'm not replying to the rest of the topic, yet.

an invader delegate (theoratically) never becomes a native, although i think he would if he gets enough native support (not sure on this though, it could be played so that he forces natives to endorse him or face expulsion....coggy?)
There are two concepts that sometimes get confused.
Native vs. non-native
Internally-Elected Delegate vs. Invader Delegate

A native is any nation that resides in a region with intent of good-faith, long-term residence in the region. Because this is based on intent, this is heavily subject to Moderator judgment; any Mod trying to investigate has to figure out what the hell you're up to, and your explanations of your own intent will sometimes not be considered sincere. I will need to inquire with other Moderators on this, but as I recall, invader nations do not automatically become natives after a set period of time. Furthermore (as I recall), invader nations never become natives in the invaded region, period.

An Internally-Elected Delegate is any nation holding the position of Delegate who has more endorsements from natives than any other UN member nation in the region. An Invader Delegate is any nation holding the position of Delegate who is opposed by someone in the same region with an equal or greater number of native endorsements. This distinction does NOT depend upon whether or not the Delegate is a native, it depends upon how many native endorsements the Delegate has. A native nation can still be an Invader Delegate. An invader nation can still be an Internally-Elected Delegate.

Let's go through some examples.

In "The Realm of Ambrosia", I am the Delegate and I have 3 native endorsements: Lesser Biglandia, Guapovia, and Affirmation.

Cogitation: 3 native endorsements. Internally-Elected Delegate.

The other Mods decide that they want to be funny, so Myrth, The Most Glorious Hack, Scolopendra, Melkor Unchained, Katganistan, SalusaSecondus, and Menelmacar all move in and endorse Scolopendra. (Let's assume that they're all in the UN.)

Cogitation: 3 native endorsements.
Scolopendra: 5 non-native endorsements. Invader Delegate.

Scolopendra is an Invader Delegate and is subject to the invasion rules. He has to unban any natives he ejects and he has to distribute any password he imposes.

Now, some of the natives decide that they want to get in on the joke. So, Guapovia, Nova Elladonia, NewValmar, and Zarvox decide to endorse Scolopendra.

Cogitation: 3 native endorsements.
Scolopendra: 4 native endorsements, 5 non-native endorsements. Internally-Elected Delegate.

Notice that Scolopendra is a non-native, but an Internally Elected Delegate. He is no longer subject to the invasion rules. However, if he ejects any of the natives endorsing him, then Scolopendra and I would be equal in endorsements and Scolo would become an Invader Delegate again.

Next, suppose the ADN decides that they have time for a joke and send 12 nations to endorse me.

Cogitation: 3 native endorsements, 12 non-native endorsements. Invader Delegate.
Scolopendra: 4 native endorsements, 5 non-native endorsements.

I am now an Invader Delegate in my own region. If I weren't also the Founder, then any password I set must be distributed to natives and any native I eject must be unbanned. Only the fact that I am the Founder of "The Realm of Ambrosia" excuses me from distributing the password or unbanning natives.

As a final step, I could eject Scolopendra and the other Mods from my region. Scolopendra may have more native endorsements than me, but he is not himself a native, so he doesn't enjoy any of the native protections under the invasion rules. So, I could eject Scolo even if I weren't the Founder. Not having any competition, anymore, I would revert to an Internally-Elected Delegate.

We have now gone through all four situations:
A Native Internally-Elected Delegate.
A Non-native Invader Delegate.
A Non-Native Internally-Elected Delegate.
A Native Invader Delegate.

If you're not talking about a Delegate, then you can use the terms "invader" and "non-native" interchangably; if you're not a Delegate, then you can't be an "Invader Delegate". If you're talking about a Delegate, then you need to be a little more careful with your terminology.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

or maybe that is because the original natives have been chased away by the invaders, and really it is easy to hold a region for quite some time..

CG, we agree on this point, we just disagree about what to do about it. IMHO, there ought to be an increase of privileges commensurate with the amount of time one nation (or a group of nations) spends in control of a region. Under the current system, there are no incentives to play by the rules because virtually nothing can be done to get founder status. That's the problem that I believe the thread starter has presented here.

Alternatively, there is a big incentive for rule-breaking (griefing). If you don't get caught griefing, and you re-found it, and you don't get caught, you get 100% founder status immediately, no string attached.

but as I recall, invader nations do not automatically become natives after a set period of time. Furthermore (as I recall), invader nations never become natives in the invaded region, period.

I understand that's the policy, but I respectfully disagree with that policy, particularly the part about "invader delegates never becoming natives." That policy doesn't incentivize playing by the rules. Such a policy promotes griefing. The only way then an invader delegate could become a native is getting away with griefing the region and re-founding it.

How come invaders don't become natives after a period of time? According to your logic, the Anglo and Saxon invasion and occupation of Britain is on-going as we speak. According to this logic, Hitler's "Operation Sea-Lion" was a continuation of the Anglo-Saxon invasion. Now, most people would say that the Anglo-Saxons are natives of Britain Sea-Lion was a German plan aimed at invading Britain. So, the assumption that invaders can never become natives doesn't really hold up to history, and that's why I challenge the application of that logic to N/S.

ummm...coggy..what i meant was more like this:

invader takes over region
kicks native del
native del loses his E's because he didn't notice he was kicked in time
invader orders natives to endorse him and only him, or face expulsion
he now has the most native endorsements, would that make him an internally elected delegate, or still an invader?

hope you see my problem here...

ummm...coggy..what i meant was more like this:

invader takes over region
kicks native del
native del loses his E's because he didn't notice he was kicked in time
invader orders natives to endorse him and only him, or face expulsion
he now has the most native endorsements, would that make him an internally elected delegate, or still an invader?

hope you see my problem here...
[Emphasis mine.]

Okay, I need to clear up this part of your question.

Does this mean "threatening to eject-and-unban natives" or "threatening to eject-and-ban natives"?

Ejecting-and-unbanning a small fraction of natives is legal. Ejecting-and-unbanning many natives or ejecting-and-banning any natives is illegal. If he's threatening to eject-and-unban many natives or if he's threatening to eject-and-ban any native, then that's literally threatening to violate NationStates rules. Threatening to violate NationStates rules is, itself, a violation of NationStates rules.

Does this adequately address your concerns?

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."

so if he posts in the WFE something like: "Endorse the Delegate or face being ejected!" that's illegal too?

never knew threatening to break the rules is in itself a ruleviolation. seems even the oldies like me can learn something new every day :D

thanks for your time, coggy. :)

so if he posts in the WFE something like: "Endorse the Delegate or face being ejected!" that's illegal too?
Hmmm.... I'm going to say "Yes" because if none of the natives endorse him, then what's he going to do? Eject all the natives? That's illegal. So, if I were handling such a case, I would change the WFE and issue a warning against the Delegate.

never knew threatening to break the rules is in itself a ruleviolation. seems even the oldies like me can learn something new every day :D
Walk into a bank and say very loudly "This is a holdup!" That one sentence, alone, is a crime... I think....

thanks for your time, coggy. :)
You're welcome. :)

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

woah wait a sec, do all the mods agree with that rule change?

woah wait a sec, do all the mods agree with that rule change?
As far as I know, I've only reiterated already-existing rules. Is there something you think has changed?

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

I think the Delegate should be given the founder status after a certain amount of time if the founder nation is gone. I created my region but because of an accident/s i had my founder nation deleted, i have been the Delegate for half a year or so in different nations and feel my region should be given back to me to make the game more compassionate one.

It is only in extraordinary situations that the moderation team will assign a Founder to a previously existing region; so far, it doesn't seem that this is the case for the region in question.

We have stated it before and will state it again; Foundership resides with the nation, not the player. If a founding nation has been deleted, the region does not have another of that player's nations installed as its founder.

Delegates should have the same powers as the founder yes I agree

Delegates should have the same powers as the founder yes I agree


read the thread first? :p

I'd like to know what [violet] thinks about defining native/founder status. Thank you.

Hello everyone!

Allow me to move this discussion from theoreticals to a real-life happening event here, with a twist. This twist would be replacing a 'dead' Founder (long dead, I might add) with one approved by the natives of the region.

I'm a native from Western Europe that's just been invaded by DEN. We are an off-site role playing group that uses our NS page for 2 purposes:

1. A welcome mat to new nations wishing to join our role-playing in the Forum we control, and
2. A central place for all the active players to put their nations so that we can easily find each other.

(I won't mention the friendly banter here flaming those with the most nude nation, or stupidest citizens....)

We use our NS nations to base a number of things on, most importantly our Military Points for purchasing armies and the like for our war role-playing.

Thus, the Western Europe region is important to us in the off-site Forum.

We have been, as I've stated, been invaded and our old UN Delegate has just been ejected, and unbanned. On the new version of our Factbook, this has been threatened to anyone that recieves more endorsements than the Invader Delegate, or is threatening to gain more endorsements.

We have made a request to have the current, long dead and inactive Founder replaced by one that the natives approve of, and have asked for.

On our Forum site, it would be easy to establish the legitimacy of who is a native and how active they are by seeing when they joined and how many posts they've made. Also, all the threads (except in password protected rooms such as for the Alliances, Ministers (internal RP moderators) and Moderators (for the Forum itself) can be read to ensure that those people are, indeed, active and have an interest.

In this case, there is little chance for abuse. The credentials for those asking for the change can be verified, and the person put forward to becoming the new Founder can also be vetted as being a legitimate replacement. (I might add here that the person put forward has paid for and created a website to go along side the Western Europe Forum.)

All this information is public, motivated by reasons that can be checked simply by reading the current posts on the Forum, and discussed with the members of the Forum to ensure that the request is not abusive and for good reason.

Given the situation described above, would the concerns of the Moderators here to replacing the Founder be reduced? Essentially, all we want is to remove the ability for the UN Delegate to kick people out of the NS Region so as to not disrupt our own set-up.

Note: the Western Europe Forum access has now been changed so that you must be logged in to view it, and all new registrations need to be approved first.

And, if I've 'hijacked' the direction of this thread, I apologize.

read the thread first? :p
i did i just stated my what i thought