Constitutional Amendment

Hersfold

Hersfold

TNPer
With the new changes to the game, we need to start finding ways to counter the new flaws in the system and getting them enacted into law as soon as possible.

Delegates are now only as powerful as their tenure allows them to be. The longer they're in the region, the more power they'll have. Fortunately for us, we're in a very big region, so our delegates can gather power very quickly in the event of an emergency through their massive endo count and the additional regional bonus. Naturally, however, this can easily be our undoing if another Great Bight somehow manages to get the big chair.

Hepzibah II (Honeysheep) is currently at the "Duckspeaker" level, whatever the hell THAT means, but I'm going to guess that it means she's got some pretty big guns in that woolly coat. At least, I hope so.

As soon as an order of influence levels is posted, I propose we amend the constitution to require that an elected Delegate possess a certain influence level before being allowed to run - same goes for Vice Delegate. In this manner, we can hopefully ensure that whoever we elect to be Delegate will be strong enough to counter any threat that may come against us. With this system being completely untested and wide open to abuse, it's best to have all bases covered as soon as possible.
 
From the description posted from Max Berry at the Jolt forum, it's not clear that the formal system within NS to elect delegates by having the most endorsements has changed. The effect appears to be what happens if the delegate ejects others, and their relative level of influence.

I agree we're going to have to monitor this, but I'm not certain yet that amendments will be in order. The system we set up looks like it can work with few adjustments in this new environment from what I can tell.....the existence of a Vice Delegate and the Security Council may make our adjustments easier than for other regions.
 
From what I can tell:

The Delegate election process is unchanged. Whoever has the most endos wields the big schtick.

However, the Delegate's power could be potentially limited. All nations have been assigned a "Regional Influence" that apparently depends on 1) the time you've spent in the region (consecutively, not over all time), 2) the amount of UN endorsements you have, 3) the size of your nation, and 4) the regional power, which I think depends on the size of the region. TNP's Regional Power is "Extremely High" (duh).

The Delegate, when excercising their ban powers, expends some of this "Influence". The amount of influence spent depends on the influence level of the nation that gets banned.

Say, for example, Honeysheep went berserk and decided to start banning people. Her first target is a brand-new nation that just got founded. She can ban them without so much as a second thought. They haven't been in the region at all, they're not in the UN, and they haven't been there long enough for the region power to take effect. Poof, goodbye newbie.

Now HS decides to take on a bigger fish, as it were, and ban Unterwasserseestaat. I chose him because he's been in the region longer than anyone I can think of, has been playing this almost since the game was created, and he usually has a fairly high number of endos. (Edit: Upon checking, Unter has an influence level of "Minnow". I think the system is slightly flawed.) If HS even has enough influence to ban him, she probably won't be doing many more bannings for a long while.

Now, new scenario. Say Unterwasserseestaat goes berserk, starts a massive endo-tart campaign, and takes over the Delegacy. We can all start applying for citizenship in the Rejected Realms. Unter's Regional Influence would be so large at that point he could probably ban just about anyone and their brother, sister, roommate, best friend from the 5th grade, dry-cleaner, etc., in about two minutes flat. And still have room for more later. That's the kind of problem we need to protect against.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I agree we're going to have to monitor this, but I'm not certain yet that amendments will be in order.
Click to expand...
Wise counsel. Let's digest all the information regarding the changes before we formulate a response (if any is required) to them. I suspect, as Grosseschnauzer suggests, our current system is as adequate to face the new challenges as it was to the old. ;)
 
We all are minnows, only delegates eceed beyond minnows(as far as I know, yes)
The regions power is determined not by the size of the region, but by how strong the delegate is,The longer the delegate is at her seat, the stronger she is, from what I can see, I don't think we can afford to make the Delegate 'still' a figurehead whose only job is to vote on resolutions.
 
There are non-delegates with higher rankings than Minnow. Tresville is a Truckler. There are countless other examples in the other regions.

I can see tenure/influence used as an effective plank in the re-election campaigns of our delegate and vice delegate.

The truth is the figurehead designation has always been an illusion anyways. Honeysheep had as much real power in game terms as Moldavi. The only three things she can do whether a figurehead or not is change the WFE, vote on resolutions and eject/ban people. That hasn't changed.
 
I don't know how accurate I will be with this, I might be totally off target, and if I am will someone please tell me.

1)Am I right in saying that more endorsements = more influence? And more influence requires a stronger delegate to kick out? If so, is it time we started thinking of implementing a endo cap? I know traditionally we've been against one.

2)Delegates can run out of influence. Should this happen, threats to the region can effectively opperate unhindered. Could a system be use by which several trusted players act as a council of vice delegates. All would have high endo counts in order to maintain high influence. In the event of a delegate using all of their influence, they could then withdraw from the UN, allowing the second place candidate to take over, with a prebuilt stack of influence to play with. In the event of a successful take over, we would still have several players with high influence who would be difficult if not impossible for a new delegate with less influence to remove...

Obviously 1) is weighing up the threat of an invasion under the new rules against a delegate going rogue. And 2) is weighing up invasion versus the chance of several people going rogue...

I do have one other idea but I'm 100% certain considering TNP's past you'd shoot it down. And possibly rightly so. But possibly not, thinking about. Some of you are probably considering all ready.

I'll stop being cryptic now.
 
I think that a delegate would not be able to kick out so many people as to use up their influence, especially a long term one.

The danger would come around a handover when a delegate might not be so firmly rooted and a longer term member would have more 'power' should they take the delegacy.
 
The simplest thing that could be done right now is to double the term of the delegate to half a year. Make handovers as narrow as possible, or stagger the Delegate and Vice Delegate Elections (which would allow one of them to stand for the position every three months), making a primary VD duty to serve as delegate during the changeover. That's sorta what they're there for, isn't it, to serve as the #2 on the endocount, right?
 
The only trouble is, this change effectively cuts out the possibility of new players becoming a delegate. I would have thought in virtually all cases, we're going to chose a high influence nation to be delegate. Certainly until we know how the influence builds a little bit better...
 
Namyeknom:
The only trouble is, this change effectively cuts out the possibility of new players becoming a delegate. I would have thought in virtually all cases, we're going to chose a high influence nation to be delegate. Certainly until we know how the influence builds a little bit better...
Click to expand...
Would you really want a completely new player a Delegate anyway? Even without the new system, there's no way of knowing if they can really be trusted until they've been here for a while. And with the new system, they probably wouldn't be powerful enough to hold up against a large invader force.
 
Endo caps still wouldn't work. The flaws of using an endo cap -- what I have generally called a "safe harbor" provision, still applies.
We need to shore up our intelligence system, and make sure we know who is trying to get endorsements. Now, the regional influence rating has to be factored in.....and once the nature of how that is actually factored becomes better understood, then it ought to be possible to compute when a particular player's endo count becomes a potential threat. That strongly suggests to me that a fixed cap of any kind numerical or percentage is not going to be sufficient.
What will work? Promotion of this region and its ideals. Offering opportunities that make maintaining our system more attractive than the alternatives. (In other words, marketing) We've got the bank system already in development. And as I recall, Flem had proposed a TNP university, which I thought was a great idea then, and still do. It can be used to teach newer players as well as create a place for more experienced players to better understand how Nationstates work in both its game and offsite modes. (And that alone might make the Minister of Culture of Education a much more attractive position.)
 
I can easily write a script that issues a warning level for the region UNs based upon Endorsements Given and recieved and their influence.
 
mr. sniffles, the only position that these changes might affect is the Delegate. It's equally likely that the discussion about additional eligibility requirements for Delegate candidates would be as appropriate, if not moreso.

However, we should not rush into enacting changes in our system without being sure the changes of NS1.9 are well understood.
 
I spent the last 30 minutes digesting these posts since I haven't looked into the new changes until today.

It seems to me that this new "regional influence" policy cuts both ways. For example, if HoneySheep were to go on a mass banning spree, she would not be able to eject (in theory) many "influential" members of TNP in a short time. On the other hand, if there is a legitimate threat whose endos are getting too close for comfort, a legitimate banning may leave the region vulnerable.

I think the presence of the VD protects us to some extent against this. If HS wanted to ban Tres, she might be able to do it, but greatly decrease her own power for awhile. Similarly, if HS has to ban a legitimate offender, we are not left with an "influence vacuum".

However, I'm concerned that this influence system takes into account endos. It may be feasible in the future for any self-righteous person to try to gather more influence/endos, ostensibly to protect against endosharkers, when that person themselves may be a threat. Before this "influence" implementation, banning him would be relatively simple if he got out of hand. Now the region has to pay a price for it. Any influence system ideally should be reworked to take into account the most influential people on this regional discussion forum, since this is where the day-to-day happenings are dealt with.
 
So... First off. "Influence is determined by two factors: how much time the nation has spent in this region, and how many UN endorsements it has had over that time."

Here's a quick, easy rundown of the top endorsed ppl in TNP atm.
HS: Duckspeaker
Tres: Truckler
Mopoker: Truckler
Kitabo: Vassal
Frejmark: Vassal
FEC (me): Minnow
Fiduciary Philandering: Minnow
Groovistan: Minnow
Everyone else (I think): Minnow

Since we've all (except maybe me) been in TNP since March, we're all at roughly the same point except for the endorsements. Looks like duckspeaker is as high as it gets for us.

The only thing that will help TNP stay stable is not getting a rouge Delegate elected and making sure our delegate maintains a *high* endo count. The more endos, the more influence. Ivan's kinda proven the delegate has quite a bit of power, and BA had been there the same amount of time as HS. Endo caps would help, they always can help in making sure we can catch people before they get too far.
 
:yes:

Having thought a bit more about this, and watched Ivan's progress through the Pacific, I've calmed down a bit (sorry about the reactionary statements earlier).

Since last time I looked over at the Pacific situation (when Ivan was classed as a Vassal), I believe several hundred more Minnows have been ejected (at least). This at least proves the delegate still has a few barbs in their tail.

Of course its going to take time to work out the the effects of removing bigger targets.

However, this lead to the assumption that, just like before the changes, an invasion is unlikely to suceed (baring incompetence on our side) and is even less likely to be held. Short of an invasion planned months in advance to allow someone gain enough influence to pose a risk (and I'm sure there aren't many invaders who'd relish the idea of their UN nation being stuck for months on end in one region), I see no really avenue through which an invasion could be mounted.

That therefore indicates, our most dangerous secenario is one in which the delegate goes rogue. Just as it has always been. And quite frankly theres nothing that can be done about it (possibly even less now). Trust is a double edged blade.

Secondly, the risks of a group of long standing players going rogue is unkown. Until we know how sapping it is for a delegate to be ejecting those of a high influence it is difficult to calculate the these risks.

As always, the risks are increased during a delegate hand over. And possibly these risks are higher now. I assume there will be a lag period between a new delegate taking over, and their influence maxing out.

Really the big question is how difficult would it be to eject those with higher influence ratings? Is their some sort of scale involved (10 minnow ejections = 1 truckler or something)? Can anyone have more influence than the delegate (both in terms of is it possible and is it likely)? Is it increasing more influence draining to eject those of higher influence than the delegate (if possible)? And can you update surf the influence?
 
The "scale" that Nam talks about in his last paragraph is one of the keys to this whole thing. If the "influence loss" is so little, even by booting a truckler, for example, that it would not even slow down a rogue delegate...
 
Something else I've just read of the NS forums, is the your influence isn't just based on the time spent in a region, and the endos recieved, but also in comparison to the rest of the region.

For example...
Nation 1 - two years, 50 endos, in a reigon of 500
Nation 2 - two years, 50 endos, in a region of 75

Nation 2 would have a high influence rating, because they are a much bigger influence in their region. You influence rating can be seen how much of the total regional influence you are contributing. Therefore its probably unlikely for a Feeder delegate (or indeed anyone else in a feeder) to get high in the influence stakes, as there are always several thousand other nations which combined make up a larger slice of the regions power. Which could be benefit or a curse...

Of course this might change as time spent in a region comes into effect (which I assumed was basically zero-ed for everyone at implementation).

This also means mass bannings could technically increase influence (or at least effect it much less than would be expected), if controlled right. Not wishng to give anyone ideas...
:duh:
 
From my reading of the detailed NS page on this a nation's influence is determined by 2 things:

1) The length of time they have been in a region (starting point March 2006)

2) The number of endorsements they have held during that time.

The regional power is simply the sum of of each nation's influence.

Therefore a small region which encouraged everyone to endorse each other could potentially have a higher power than a larger region where only the Delegate tended to be endorsed.

Every time the Delegate ejects or ban/ejects they lose some of their influence (more for ban/ejects than ejects)

The higher the influence of the player they eject the more influence the Delegate loses by ejecting.

EDIT: To answer Namyeknom's question I believe it is entirely possible that player(s) could have higher influence than the Delegate.

For example, Player A comes into the region gains (say) 250 endo's in a week

Player B has been in the region for 6 months, holding 240 endos for most of that time.

Player A will be Delegate but Player B would have much more influence. I assume that it would also be possible that Player A would not have enough influence to ban Player B
 
This is going to get very interesting. Very interesting indeed!
 
Hm, I have a question.

Supposedly the influence is predicated on how long you've been in the region and how many endos you've accumulated. However, I have another nation in another region (basically my "just for fun" nation) that has the influence level of vassal. I think someone mentioned previously that this is supposed to be a higher level of influence above minnow.

The unusual thing is that my TNP nation is at minnow influence, and I started both nations at around the same time (and have never moved out, etc). Endos can't be the answer either because my other "just for fun" nation doesn't even have a single endo, whereas my TNP nation has around 10, I believe.
 
Wizard, one thing to keep in mind is that the influence factor is only tracking nations since some unannounced date in March, and the total number of nations, the total number of UN nations, and the level and extent of endos all appear to be factored in. It appears to me that all of these are factors in the region's influence ranking as opposed to each nation.

In the region where my UN is located, my UN is of an "ambassador" rank and all of my other non-UN puppets are all at the "minnow" rank, and they're all been in that region since the middle of last year.

My one TNP nation is at "minnow" as well, but it is not a UN. I suspect the rankings will eventually make more sense as time goes on.

I have serious reservations that any type of endo cap is going to make sense in this new environment, any more than it did previously. I think that better intelligence and monitoring systems for endo activity and the impact it has on a nation's influence rating is going to prove to be of far more value than any type of endo-capping. Endo-capping may seem like an easy answer, but I sense that it will prove to have its drawbacks even in the new environment.
 
I've gone over the implications of the new NS rules as per "influence" that a given nation has within a specific region, etc. While, for the most part, it doesn't make much of a difference other than limiting the ability of a Delegate to eject nations (expending one's 'influence' in the process based upon the 'influence' of a specific nation being ejected).

All that aside, there are a large number of strategic implications and possible scenarios I have explored that might essentially exploit tactics and strategies as per game play. The new 'influence' system tends to favor natives/long time residents of a region, and that influence is largely just how many UN endos one has, but that effect will change over time.

Strategically speaking, the new system benefits those who stay in one particular region, but there are built in ways to get around that without sacrificing one's 'influence' level, but that will take long term residency in a region before endorsements are the lesser part of the 'influence' rating.

There are some tactical scenarios being played out right now amongst smaller regions to test these theories already.

As it is right now, our vice delegate position essentially precludes our worst invasion nightmares should the delegate be forced to eject a large number of invaders. The vice Delegate would have sufficient level of 'influence' to thwart the teil end of an invasion. There are other strategic scenarios that I would rather not discuss, however. Which leads to my next point.

We need to employ the NPIA and the Ministry of defense in observing the goings on in smaller regions and come up with a serious defense policy that can take into account any number of possible scenarios for invasion and how to defend against it.

Any thoughts on this?

R
 
Here's what I would do (and thanks to Dobbyniania for the idea of a Placeholder Delegate).

First, create a Placeholder Delegate. This would be a nation that serves as the Delegate of The North Pacific. The nation would never leave the region allowing regional influence to accumulate uninterrupted. The nation would be controlled by the elected Delegate, but more than one person would have the password at any given time (the Delegate and an administrator who is not currently the Vice Delegate). By having multiple nations control the password, there is a small chance a rogue Delegate could be stopped if they forget to change the password. I know it is unlikely, but it is still worth a shot.

Then, add in another Vice Delegate, maybe even two. Thus, for a Delegate to go rogue, he would need all of the Vice Delegates to agree, or he would be wasting quite a lot of influence ejecting Vice Delegates.

And finally, require government officials not involved in the North Pacific Army to hold a UN nation with a certain level of influence, just below whatever you set for the Vice Delegate, as another check in the system.

And then of course, shore up intelligence work, as Grosseschnauzer has pointed out.
 
The idea of a placeholder delegate may be worth exploring.
In a region with a founder nation, that founder nation can be shared by a group in this new environment as long as it is not a UN member nation. The founder can then be the ultimate protector of a founded region under these new rules.
Of course, feeders do not have founders, but it would seem logical to have a permanent delegate nation (Magicality City, perhaps?) that is transfered from elected delegate to elected delegate who removes their own nation from the UN during their elected term to hold the region's permanent UN Delegate nation. We could even have a permanent Vice Delegate nation that can be passed from Vice Delegate to Vice Delegate in the same manner. Then it would be possible for a "permanent" delegate and vice delegate nation to collect so many endos as to make the Delegacy virtually beyond attack. It will require a high level of trust in whoever is elected as Delegate and Vice Delegate, but that element is no different that what would have been necessary before the changes.
One last point, a "permanent" delegate and vice delegate would avoid the risk that currently exists during the "handover" period, and the newly elected Delegate and Vice Delegate could be installed fairly quickly. We'd have to work out the mechanism to transfer control (i.e., a changed password through an intermediary for each newly elected Delegate and Vice Delegate.....but that would be a faster process than the two weeks or more the current system would require.
The idea merits some discussion and analysis to see if there are weaknesses and how to remdy those should weaknesses exist.

Grenval:
And finally, require government officials not involved in the North Pacific Army to hold a UN nation with a certain level of influence, just below whatever you set for the Vice Delegate, as another check in the system.
Click to expand...

I do not believe this will be necessary. This region has reaffirmed the voluntary nature of UN membership through the Declaration of Rights, and I am loath to change that fundamental principle, especially where such a change is not necessary.
 
I like the idea of a place-holder Delegate and Vice Delegate. It addresses both the new Influence rules and the uncertainty of the handover period. While nothing can protect us from a rogue delegate, a place-holder Delegate would mitigate some of the risks and drawbacks inherent in our current system.

While "require" is probably too strong a word, I believe "requesting" that government officials, where possible, consider gathering endorsements to bolster their regional influence also merits consideration. The more high-ranked nations we have in the region (provided they are trusted), the more difficult it becomes for a rogue delegate to do business here.
 
I think the idea is worth exploring, but one possible weakness, to build off of what Grosseschnauzer said, is the fact that a Permanent Delegate nation would mean that anyone elected to the Delegacy needs to be widely trusted.

It is true that we currently only elect Delegate candidates that are trusted, but the fact that the Delegate would step into a nation that basically has the maximum level of influence in theory (since it has a bunch of endos and has always been in the region) is troublesome. A delegate who assumes such a nation upon being elected may have more power than if the delegate was controlling his own nation.

As I've said before, the idea of "protecting" the Delegacy in various ways is a double-edged sword -- it's great if the Delegate is facing assaults from outside, but extremely dangerous if the Delegate himself is wreaking havoc.

I don't believe we can establish a Permanent Delegacy without having a Permanent VD (if you increase the potential power of one, you should increase the potential power of the other to maintain the balance we currently have in place). And having two nations that are more powerful than the Delegate and VD's own nations just adds to the potential issues that I already mentioned.

Having 2 VD's instead may be a viable alternative, but the cost/reward ratio for this second VD would be higher than for the first VD (finding trustworthy candidates, more bureaucracy, etc).


I propose an alternative to all these ideas that may not be popular, but here it is: I believe the current Delegate-VD system places a fairly good check against someone going ballistic. That is, you would need both Delegate and VD to go awry before something happens. The one thing that has occurred in conversations again and again is the "handover" period where we are vulnerable. Therefore, I propose very simply that the Delegate and VD be elected in a STAGGERED manner, similar to how only 1/3 of the United States Senate is up for election every 2 years.

For example, the Delegate would be elected when everyone else in the Cabinet is elected, but the VD is elected 1.5 months after that. Now some people may think this is just too many elections, but this system has distinct advantages. It virtually eliminates the handover problem. When the new Delegate is working up his/her endos, the VD is already there, and vice versa.
 
wizardofoz01:
I believe the current Delegate-VD system places a fairly good check against someone going ballistic. That is, you would need both Delegate and VD to go awry before something happens.
Click to expand...
The vice-delegate would be the first person ejected by a rogue delegate, old rules or new. The only real purpose the V-D serves is to cut down the time needed to pass a delegate that becomes inactive.

We have no protection against a Delegate that decides to take matters into their own hands. Never have, never will.

Staggering Del/V-D elections doesn't solve the problem of the 2+ week gap that usually occurs between their election and their actually taking power. It doesn't address the new problem of regional influence. If we want maximum protection against a sustained invasion, we need to have our delegate as powerful as possible. Yes this involves trust, but that is no different in any other system that can be conceived with regards to NS game mechanics.
 
Blackshear, I think wizardofoz's suggestion is aimed at preventing sitting, undercover invaders from taking control during the handover period. Obviously, once a Delegate is rogue, handovers wouldn't matter. Nevertheless, I think there are other, better options compared to staggered elections.

But more importantly we all need to remember that under the new system, we have infinitely more control over a rogue Delegate. You simply force him to eject until you wear down his regional influence to a point where he can no longer ban. The days of puppetmaster and update surfing are over. Highly endorsed nations will want to be ejected, and then, it becomes only a matter of time.
 
Grenval:
Blackshear, I think wizardofoz's suggestion is aimed at preventing sitting, undercover invaders from taking control during the handover period.  Obviously, once a Delegate is rogue, handovers wouldn't matter.  Nevertheless, I think there are other, better options compared to staggered elections.
Click to expand...

Um, no kidding?

But more importantly we all need to remember that under the new system, we have infinitely more control over a rogue Delegate.  You simply force them to eject until you wear down there regional influence to a point where they can no longer ban.  The days of puppetmaster and update surfing are over.  Highly endorsed nations will want to be ejected, and then, it becomes only a matter of time.
Click to expand...

1354 ejections suggest that could be quite a wait.
 
Blackshear:
Grenval:
Blackshear, I think wizardofoz's suggestion is aimed at preventing sitting, undercover invaders from taking control during the handover period.  Obviously, once a Delegate is rogue, handovers wouldn't matter.  Nevertheless, I think there are other, better options compared to staggered elections.
Click to expand...

Um, no kidding?
Click to expand...
All of your points seemingly stemmed from the fact that a staggered election would not prevent a rogue Delegate. I was just pointing out that such prevention was not the purpose of wizardofoz's suggestion.


Blackshear:
Grenval:
But more importantly we all need to remember that under the new system, we have infinitely more control over a rogue Delegate.  You simply force them to eject until you wear down there regional influence to a point where they can no longer ban.  The days of puppetmaster and update surfing are over.  Highly endorsed nations will want to be ejected, and then, it becomes only a matter of time.
Click to expand...

1354 ejections suggest that could be quite a wait.
Click to expand...

He ejected 4 UN nations and his regional influence dropped an estimated five points (I'm estimating because no official scale has been posted yet that I know of).

He ejected 1350 non UN nations, and his regional influence didn't drop at all.

Granted, once the influence gained from being in the same region for extended periods of time kicks in, that will change the ability to kick non UN nations with such ease, but my point is that for a rogue Delegate to eject everyone within one hundred endorsements of him is nearly impossible. Thus, liberation tactics become incredibly easy. Create a list of ten nations to endorse and wait until update. Voilà!
 
We seriously need *one* topic to discuss this. :duh:

Okay... couple of things. But first, gotta speak as a NS Mod (even if it's just forum :P) It's *bad* policy to exchange nations. Bad, bad, bad. Warnings on new owners nations could count against the delegate if more happened, and there is *no* way to guarantee the person wouldn't just change the password and claim it as their own after changing the email. TNP could do nothing at that point except watch the mods laugh at us.

Now, back to being a TNPer. I personally don't like placeholder delegates because it removes some of the identity of being delegate. Plus, as the delegate nation stays there longer, the danger from a rogue delegate becomes greater. Placeholder nations under influence will always be more powerful then newcomers, but we're trying to *make* it turnover. That's what term limits and 3 month election cycles are for.

There is pretty much *no* danger from a sudden invasion. Aside from the fact that it's pretty much impossible to gain 300+ endorsements in a short enough amount of time *not* to be noticed, the faster you gain them the easier it will be to kick you out. As someone's mentioned, the real danger lies in someone that sits and waits. But truly, I doubt it would be invaders, just someone who likes to plot.

There are a bunch of options out there, the question is if we need to take *any* of them. The greatest danger to TNP will always be a rogue delegate. Second, it now appears will be someone that steadily gains influence and sits right below whatever limit there is and gains influence longterm. The only way to prevent both of those is through intelligence and trust.
 
Just a couple of comments.

First, this is all brainstorming. About the only point on which there is a consensus is that real monitoring systems and expanded intelligence capacity are needed with the rule changes.

As to FEC's comments about nation "exchanging," I'm not quite sure what a specially designed nation would do to earn warnings in NS. I would think that all they would do as far as NS itself is concerned is to approve proposals and cast the region's votes on resolutions., and of course, to eject or ban (which under our system requires prior review under the Constitution.)

Am I enthusiastic about the idea? I am probably the last person you'd expect would suggest a "Pixiedance" type solution for this new environment. The difference is, and the distinction from what occurred with "Pixiedance" is that the player who receives control is democratically elected for a fixed term, and then would hand over control to a democratically elected successor.

The security comes not just from enhancing the influence of the placeholder delegate but from the presence of a Vice Delegate which is handled in the same manner. I'm not convinced yet that more than one Vice Delegate is necessary.

Staggered terms? That only comes into play if we choose to stay away from a placeholder approach. I have thought of a lengthened terms with a longer passover period in place/

Another alternative elect a player as Vice Delegate, who then serves the subsequent term as Delegate, and who then serves as a Immediate Past Delegate who plays a role in assuring the handover of the placeholders for Delegate and Vice Delegate. If there is a vacancy for Delegate, then the Vice Delegate player promptly moves up and special elections for a replacement VD are promptly held for the balance of the term. If there is a vacancy for Vice Delegate, then the special election for a replacement is promptly held. If the retired Delegate player leaves the game, then the government can select a trusted player to hold that function for the remainder of the term.

Or we could end up with a combination of these various alternatives. What I ideally want is something that protects the elected Delegate system we have put in place with as few constitutional changes as possible. I think such a solution is possible. While a rouge delegate is always possible, we have had three complete transitions of power to off-site forum elected Delegates (Stars of Sky to Flemingovia to FEC to Honeysheep) and the security council has responded quickly to endo-tarting threats in the meantime.

It may well be that all that is needed is an increased emphasis on intelligence and monitoring. But I am open to hearing more feedback and ideas about this -- and I'm sure that the players who are celebrating holidays will have a lot to say when they sign in after the weekend.
 
I personally am confused as to what you all mean when you say increased intelligence monitoring. You already scan the region daily. You already cross-check IP addresses with other regions and organizations. You already exchange intelligence with allies. Unless you recently decided to stop doing those things, it doesn't seem like you can adequately address these new security threats by just shoring things up, whatever that means.

The facts are, under this system, the risk of another nation, be it a rogue Delegate or sitting invader, taking over is the same as before. The only difference are the tactics used to remove the the new Delegate from power, and I have already discussed those.

If you want more safety, increase the number of nations and their number of endorsements. It doesn't get much more complicated than that.
 
Blackshear:
The vice-delegate would be the first person ejected by a rogue delegate, old rules or new. The only real purpose the V-D serves is to cut down the time needed to pass a delegate that becomes inactive.

We have no protection against a Delegate that decides to take matters into their own hands. Never have, never will.

Staggering Del/V-D elections doesn't solve the problem of the 2+ week gap that usually occurs between their election and their actually taking power. It doesn't address the new problem of regional influence. If we want maximum protection against a sustained invasion, we need to have our delegate as powerful as possible. Yes this involves trust, but that is no different in any other system that can be conceived with regards to NS game mechanics.
Click to expand...
The VD serves one very important purpose -- to put it bluntly, the VD is a speed bump on the highway to dictatorship for a rogue Delegate. Would you rather have a rogue Delegate with full influence banning you, or would you have a rogue Delegate use up some of that influence on banning the VD (and thus buy more time for legitimate citizens to react?).

Now, to defend my staggered elections idea. IT DOES solve the problem of the handover gap -- namely, it eliminates it. Once the new delegate is elected and is gaining endos (and the old delegate subsequently losing endos), the VD is not up for election and is still sitting there ready to respond to a crisis. It at least gives us one solid elected representative at a high endo count. By this token, it DOES address the problem of regional influence by ensuring that, to the best of our ability, we neutralize the threat that it would potentially pose.

Maximum protection against a sustained invasion via a powerful Delegate? I ask you what this accomplishes if the Delegate himself decides to turn on us. Indeed, a threat from within is always more difficult to combat than a threat from without, simply by definition -- we can see the threats from without much more easily. We don't need a Delegate more powerful than currently in order to deal with outside attacks.
 
Wiz - two week doesn't sound long enough for your plan to be successful as it takes that long for the Delegate to assume power. How about we extend the "staggering" period. Like one election we elect a delegate, then the next we elect a Vice, then the next we elect another Del. It would mean extending term limits of course.
 
On the whole of things, unless there is a very well coordinated invasion requiring invaders to be ejected en mass, the new rule does't change things very much at all.

As an interesting aside - regional founders can do whatever they want without incurring any lose of 'influence' in their region.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top