NationStates Jolt Archive

Which do you prefer?

A founder-controlled region is safer against invaders, but the leader is basically "king for life". He cannot be replaced if he turns "evil" or just decides to leave the game.

A delegate-controlled region is more vulnerable, but he's also accountable to the people who elected him. If he doesn't represent the people, he can be replaced, and if he leaves the game, a replacement can be elected.

Founder, by far. Unless the Delegate has been there long enough to have insurmountable influence.

Delegate. However, he should have special attributes (such as, not being deposed) in critical cases (as invasions, for instance).

i am not convinced.

there is something wrong out there.

However, he should have special attributes (such as, not being deposed) in critical cases (as invasions, for instance).
We have a term for nations with those very special attributes. We call them "Founders".

After the recent problems with Tyrr (see the Moderation forum), I can see the advantages of a true founderless region (that is, a region that has never had a founder (http://www.safalra.com/other/nationstates/founderless-regions/)), though only if it's a decent size.

We have a term for nations with those very special attributes. We call them "Founders".

Perhaps I got it wrong, but Founders aren't elected. They just found the region and simply stay forever. So, if the Founder turned out to be evil itself, we either stick to it or leave and start building influence from the early beginning.

What should be done, in my opinion, is to elect Delegates, and in cases of crisis, they are temporally invested with more attributes. Like what happens with states of emergency.

Perhaps I got it wrong, but Founders aren't elected. They just found the region and simply stay forever. So, if the Founder turned out to be evil itself, we either stick to it or leave and start building influence from the early beginning.

What should be done, in my opinion, is to elect Delegates, and in cases of crisis, they are temporally invested with more attributes. Like what happens with states of emergency.
And of course, no-one has ever used a state of emergency as an excuse to hang on to power...

What happened with Tyrr is unusual, but I've seen Founders just decide out of the blue to do something the rest of the region didn't agree with. I've also seen regions destroyed when a Founder left the game and his nation vanished.

It's a lot harder for a rogue Delegate to do anything like that, and if the Delegate player leaves the game, the region can elect a new Delegate, while they can't elect a new Founder.

The downside, of course, is security against raiders, especially in small regions.

I'm currently founder of my region, but want someone else to take power so I can focus on making a new nation, no way to do this I'm guessing?

I'm currently founder of my region, but want someone else to take power so I can focus on making a new nation, no way to do this I'm guessing?

Not difficult at all. Pick an Heir who wants to be Founder, change the password in your Founder nation, and give your Heir the keys to his new kingdom. You permanently lose the Founder nation, and somebody else takes over.

Simple.

Founder controlled. As long as they want to build a community it's unlikely they'll turn evil. Some are pretty easy going even. The united nations region allows non-un nations and "The Axis of Evil" doesn't neccessarily require your nation be a demented dictatorship(though they strongly prefer it).

Founder controlled is better because they cannot be invaded.

I think founder control is better for smaller regions. But for regions with more than 200 member states, the risk of takeover is quite low.

Delegate. However, he should have special attributes (such as, not being deposed) in critical cases (as invasions, for instance).

That would suck. Invading is a fun part of the game. Whats the point in invading if you cant get to delegate.