Here's what I've found out about having a founder installed in a region:

Regions created prior to the new Regional Control feature do not have a Founder set. If you created a region before then, you can prove that you did, you can request to be retroactively appointed Founder.

You need to:

Post a note on your regional message board saying you intend to do this

Allow other nations in your region to post their support (or otherwise)

Visit the Getting Help page and lodge a request for the Moderators.

This is for special regions only -- regions that players created a long time ago and have put a lot of work into maintaining (e.g. have their own off-site web pages). Everyone else can create a new region if they wish to be appointed Founder.

Obviously, if the nations of Canada decide they want to do this, then there would have to be total agreement from everyone. And remember, once a region does this, it's a permanent fixture from that day forward.

so who created Canada?

I nominate Chups, since he was the delegate when my nation was born.

I really don't think we need a founder. It's just another power spot really and it lessons the impact of the UN delegate.

It's like haveing a King or something. It would be a step backward IMHO.

:)

Mango, the great philosopher, said it best, "Can you capture the Wind? Tell the Sun, "Sun! Stop shining!", No! Such is the Mango!"

:D

I know I'm grave diggin here but back in Aug TD head the nail on the head. Any region without a founder is open to invasion.

The use of a founder to protect from invaders was a code change made in the game. All new regions are automatically assigned a founder.

Without going into the details, in an open forum, just think about that for a second. The supply of older regions without a founder is shrinking. They die off, they get invaded or they correct the problem. The selection of regions to invade is getting more and more limited. So it's just a matter of time before Canada captures some invader's attention.

I would assume that Canada is big enough to rate having the mods modify our region to assign a founder. If not, then we create a new region and move there. After you put some simple procedures into place, that I won't discuss here, the worst that all the invaders in NS could ever do is spam the message boards.

If you see the responses to TD's post (by nations that do not know what they are talking about) I can assure you it is not a power trip. It's just using the game code the way it is written. End of story.

That's a compelling view. After what happened to our allies in Vancouver last month, and the fact that Canada, due to its size, is probably a fairly attractive but attainable subject for an invasion, I'd suggest we'd be wise to explore this route further. With a region like the South Pacific, with a delegate that had 622 endorsements coming only 7 away from being ousted by a dictator, we're essentially a sitting duck.

In an ideal world, I'd suggest we wait until after elections and let our Defence Minister deal with this.

However, if TD is reading this, I'd suggest that as our delegate, that the ball start rolling on this subject.

Before I make up my mind either way, does anyone know what a founder exactly does? What does the founder do? What powers does the founder assume and how does the founder work with the Delegate? My only concern is that with if we were ever to have founder and a Delegate who were at odds with one another, would the appointed founder have the power to overried the sitting Delegate?

Any info on the actual mechanics of the founder position would be appreciated.

I'll try and TG you about the founder powers. This something I don't think you should educate the general public on.

This is from the FAQ section of NS

How do I manage my region?

The person who created a region is known as its "Founder," and can access a page called "Regional Control." This allows him or her to set the World Factbook Entry, password-protect the region (to make it invitation-only), and eject troublemakers. Regional Control is also available to UN Delegates, although the Founder can disable this.

----

I would have thought that all other power is political or implied by the position.

I reckon this is one to sort out sooner rather than later if what HB says is right.

Also as TD is going to be around less it would be cool for him to have a position like that. A sort of retirement present..... :unsure:

Then again is it worth assigning to someone with more of an active hand in things?

If you want to see what the founder does just check this out:

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index....l/region=Canada

The Founder idea is one that should be explored further. However, it seems to me that before we go on further, we should adopt a constitution and elect a government first. Once we have a legitimately elected government, then our new cabinet will be in a position to legitimately look at installing a Founder and determining the best course of action on that front and other issues related to defence.

As for the discussion that's been going around about having a founder appointed for Canada, I'd like to have a few words with you.

A founder has it's pluses and minuses. It's been long thought that a founder for Canada would detract from the region's democratic values due to the inherent permanency of the position, and the absolute power that a founder has over a region. A founder is more to a region than someone who exercises control over the region through the control screen. There are different rules that apply to a founder based region in NS. Essentially, the administrators of NS view the founder of a region as the one who "owns" the region and as founder, you are allowed to do things that a delegate can not. For example, if the delegate decided to put a regional password into place, by the rules of NS, he or she would be required to give that password to all "native" residents of the region. A founder would not.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that Canada was created in the spirit of democracy. That is to say, for everyone to use and own a small piece of. Sort of a utopian society where beer and pie a free for all.

Some will say that there are security issues that can only be addressed by installing a founder. As a long-term resident of Canada I say that regional stability, growth, and dedication to democracy are the best security measures we can hope and strive for. Today's election results prove that.

ps.

There are almost no regions left in NS with the freedom from a founder that Canada enjoys, and none that I know of the size of Canada.

(also posted on Canada's regional forum)

I can not believe what I'm reading! "freedom from a founder"?? What the??

* shakes head * how can some one so knowledgeable about the game totally miss the point. No invader worth their salt would ever even bother to invade a region with an existing founder. That's as close to invasion proof as the game gets!

So many invaders with fewer and fewer regions to invade is many, many times a greater threat than the chance that someone trusted somewhere down the road decides to password protect the region.

""freedom from a founder"??" what nonsense! Still don't believe that I see your name next to that! I don't know what to say....

I see both sides. I am now personally convinced that the founder option, if implemented correctly, is the best one.

But I see where TD is coming from. A founder is open to abuse, and is, on first blush, contrary to the democratic nature of this region.

However, I have become convinced that a founder can be implemented such that it remains consistent with the democratic processes of this region.

For those reasons, I've moved from being against a founder to now being in favour of one.

I made it an eleciton promise to resolve this, and resolve it I will!!!

What do you have to fear from having a founder installed? I think that if you feel as strongly as you do about canada's democracy then put yourself forward as the potential founder.

Its clear that you have some deeply held beliefs about this. If its what you believe in, then make a stand. So long as you are the founder you can uphold these values, specifically by not abusing your power over the region.

I think that we are all unified in this. There has been some disagreement about how a founder nation should be implemented in the region, but so far nobody, until you, denied that we needed one.

We can rely on allies and democracy to a point, but there has to be a contigency for times when allies desert us, and our values can do nothing for us. It is folly to go believing we can defend ourselves indefinitely.

We need that back up, and if you are not prepared to be the security that the region needs then please don't feel offended if we try and find some way of protecting ourselves.

i have stated it no numerous occasions, but you have the greatest claim to the title of founder. From what you have said, I would also argue that you might be the best choice for the position.

Well guys, it goes something like this.

You fellas go ahead and try to prove who the actual founder of Canada is. Make your case to the Mods, and let me know how you make out. Make your request to those who administer NS, and I'll be surprised if you even get a response. They just aren't in the business of installing founders.

See this post by a game moderator.

Probably best to let the idea die a peaceful death. You'd do better to focus your attention on getting people to endorse the current delegate.

Ok, so the Mods don't do it, unless its a special occasion or something... There are ways and means of persuading people. We can pester to death..... :D

I mean how hard can it be. Reusable code is designed for just this problem, and i will bet that they have done it before.

Just out of interest, TD are you against the idea from the perspective of the game mechanic, or are you against it for the fact that it goes against the democratic way of region?

If its something that is more to do with the democratic standing of the region then you should be in there lobbying right now to become founder.

Come on man - there's no need to be defeatist. You never know until you try.

No matter what measure you take to ensure the integrity of a "communal" founder, you will never be able remove the human variable. Say for example you were able to somehow persuade the Mods to appoint nation X as founder. Further to this example, say you gave the password of this puppet founder nation to three of the most trusted players in Canada. Everything is cool, right?

Wrong. This approach is flawed in a fundamental way. Each person with the password has a different point of view. What do you think would happen if one of the players one day decided that the other founder controllers were out to lunch, and that he or she could really make some changes around Canada. "Screw it." He/she might think. "I want to be the sole founder of Canada." Clikity click, a few key strokes, and voila!! That person is suddenly, and irrevocably sole founder. What could be done about it? Nothing.

That's whats happened to lots of regions over time, and one of the reasons the mods have adjusted thier point of view to appoint founders only in extreme cases of region griefing. And in those few cases where it is deemed necessary to install a founder, a game mod is usually assigned the position of founder until whatever emergency called for such a drastic action passes.

If they decide to install a founder in Canada, it would set a precedent that many people would see as a shift in policy within NS, and they'd be up to their necks with requests from other regions. I can't believe that they'd be willing to do it for Canada when so many people have asked and been refused.

You make a good point against having a puppet shared founder. All the more reason that someone should be the real founder, for good or ill.

In a way we don't need a founder. If democracy is the touch stone of the region, we have to put it to the people. As such your posts will form a very important arguement against.

Still, I would ask you to reconsider.

My last post was about you becoming founder, not the theoretical communal puppet founder.

NEVER!!!

j/k..

But not really. Founders make residents evil and lazy. So what if we get invaded? We have a founder to fix it all up. Takes the fun out of the game.

Let me quote Thomas Jefferson "People who are willing to give up their freedoms for more security dont get it and dont deserve it."

As a former Defence Minister of Canada (2 terms during and shortly after chups reign) I can safely say Canada is a very safe region. We have a large body of UN nations, we are perfectly capable of keeping control of this region.

Adding a founder will add more corruption, less freedoms, and destroy the authority of our UN Delegate who is kept in democratically.

I am also the founder of Kramerica and I can assure you that our government is highly undemocratic. The UN Delegate has no authority unlike the one in Canada.

So if you want more corruption and less freedoms, install a Founder.

First of all, that mangled quote belongs to Franklin.

Secondly, Franco has clearly shown that it does not matter how many UN nations you have, you can still get invaded.

Thirdly, having a founder will add no more corruption or less freedoms than than if the same person was a delegate.

Perhaps the most obvious point is that founders were programmed into the game to control invasions, not to "add corruption".

And my last point is, how you arrange the security of the region has absolutely nothing to do with the region's form of government.

So if you want more more invasions and less freedoms, don't install a Founder!

The fact of the matter is, if set up correctly, with a founder it is not possible to be invaded. The worst thing an invader could do is become delegate against the will of the region and spam the message board.

IMHO the prospect of getting invaded is not fun. Not if it can be prevented.

:D :lol: :D

TD - I will take that as a no then. At least I managed to get a straight answer. (it was pretty clear what it was gonna be, but I needed to hear you say it :) )

Christopholous - i like your thinking to an extent here and it appears that you and TD are the voice of experience in these matters. I think that keeping up the count of UN Nations is going to end up as our best defence in the long run. The more of those UN nations are willing to endorse the PM the better. The road is a harder and longer one, but maybe its that way for a reason. Still.........

I think what everyone is missing is that we should be finding out what the parameters for founder installationa are. We need more information.

We can then make sure that everyone in the region knows the current situation regarding founders. After we have put that info public, its up to everyone to make a decision.

Mob rule...... er I mean ..... democracy.... :D

well I got that off CNN a long time ago, and I dont know a lot about American history

Francos Spain... 1 nation of out how many?? Francos did not by definition invade the Pacific.
A sort of occurance that strong like Francos in this game is extremely rare....that argument does nothing but fead baseless fears, and should not be used so seriously in this debate.


Having a founder will cause corruption.. that is a fact. A delegate corrupt enough to eject nations who do not support him rarely comes around...because he most likely would lose the support of those who would endorse him...especially in Canada.

Also as an experienced person in invading I can assure you that an invading force can only keep control of a region for a short time..usually only a few days or a couple weeks. It is easier to invade a region than it is to keep control of it. It is especially hard to keep even brief control of a large region. It is impossible for an invading force to keep a password on a large region, there are many game rules working for the defenders.(e.g. every regional native must be immediatly given the password, only a few can be banned)

How? How can you believe that giving someone absolute power and authority will not make them corrupt? The founder will control the region based on his/her biased beliefs and only appoint ministers that support his/her ways.

I agree they were programmed to help against invasions...but there is an obvious trade off for that.

The Founder has everything to do with the regions form of government. The founder has the say in everything. The founder has access to regional control and can choose wether or not the UN Delegate can access regional control.
For example I dont give the UN Delegate in Kramerica access to regional control.
The founder can choose to form any government he likes, and can simply appoint ministers instead of allowing elections.

More invasions? So what, they are fun and we have more than enough power as it is.
you say less freedoms with a founder? gimme a break

Out of curiosity... are you planning on making yourself a contendor for "Foundership"?

So as a Founder myself I can assure you that installing a Founder would be a major detriment to the democtratic workings and discussions that we are having today.

BTW, when was the last time that Canada was taken over by invaders?

I sense rising tension on this issue.

By resolved i didn't mean "founder installed, job done". As Checkers has pointed out (cheers for the support CM :) ) :-

It was clearly something that HB wanted to bring to everyone's attention. Its a defence issue and a regional issue.

By resolved i meant resolved, for good or ill, founder or no founder. I would like us all to be able to come to an agreement over this. I would very much like the outcome of this debate to be one we can all be content with.

TD, Christ, if you're right, then you're right. We don't know that yet. Unless you guys can tell the future, you don't know that yet. We will find that out in due course. As we find that out, we might clarify our understanding of the mods position on it and come to a better understanding of the matter.

Both of your attitudes towards this seem a little jaded. If we try and we fail, at least we tried. Perhaps I am wasting my time. But you know what? its mine to waste...

Your objections to us following this course of action are more than clear and, believe you me, noted. It might be said that posts in this thread are leaning dangerously close to flame baiting.

Come on guys, we are bigger than this thing, and we can resolve our differences on it. I do mean well and I am an idealist at heart, but don't get the wrong idea. I ain't bullet proof. I could have taken huge offence at your post TD, but I don't. The idea is for us to be a progressive region.

When the time comes to go to a poll in the issue we will all have chance to put our arguements to a larger audience, rather than at each other. If a founder cannot be installed, or is objected to by the masses, it leads us to the next issue "how best to secure the region without a founder?", and so on.

no problem boardz

Good for you, but if it I were you, I know I would have taken offence to it.
Don't get me wrong TD, I respect your opinion, but I think the attitude was uncalled for.

I wouldn't call anything here as flamebaiting. This is just good old fashioned discussion. Yes, tension is rising, and well it should - this is a pretty big issue with fundamental consequences. Sure, some words were not as carefully chosen as they should have been - it happens. No malice was meant by it, I am sure.

I for one am pleased to see someone experience like Christopholous back in the fold - this can only be a good thing for the region and his point of view is appreciated.

Having said that - we all need to relax here. Canada was fine without a founder for the last fifteen months, it will be, in all likelihood, fine as we take our time and get information on the issue.

Nothing is imminent on the founder front - we are just exploring the process, getting the facts, and weighing the options.

It is good to know there is so much interest in this issue - with all of this vigorous debate, I am certain it will lead to the best possible solution to the issue and for the region.

In conclusion, I am pleased everyone is debating this issue with so much passion and heart. Together, I am sure we'll come to the best conclusion for the region.

Must...... .. ... continue. ... .. .... . .... debate.... . . .. .....

The future? No. But he who forgets history will be forever condemned to repeat it...

I was never trying to be condecending by the way. I'm just a plain spoken maritimer with very little diplomatic skill.

Look. You guys did a lot of work putting an interesting spin on Canada with the elections. Our population is at an all time high, and you should be proud of that. Why not put the whole founder thing on the back burner for a while, and focus your attention on a more constructive initiative.

I for one would like to see a broader development of Canada's defence by promoting democracy throughout NS. Our continued success would be better served by developing The Dogs of War into a cohesive group of players that would bring democracy to oppressed regions everywhere.

Let the eyes of NS fall on Canada as a shining jewl of democracy... Blah blah blah...

lol.

*raises hand in the air* question...if the mods wont allow it then whats the problem??

That's the issue - we need to find out whether or not that's the case. We've heard so many variations of the alleged truth, I for one am very confused (anyone got some Advil? :)

So I think we need to relax, get the facts, and take it from there.

They may well not let us have a founder. But we haven't found a 100% clear answer yet. If we do, then obviously, this whole exercise is moot.

so someone just TG a mod and ask for crying out loud if they say no then wheres the harm?

oh and my two cents...the only thing a founder is good for is to stop invasions and so long as we have strong allies they why do we have to worry about this? screw the founder idea and just stick with what we have
end two cents :D

as someone else said before (sorry, too lazy to figure out who):
If we try and fail, at least we know we tried.

There is currently an open thread on this in the NS Forum.

NS Founder Thread

At the moment Cogitation is looking into what the options are. They don't look great, but we will see.

DoW - Yep cool I am down with that. I did say I would look at this first.

I agree lets look at our options, find out what NS can do if anything and discuss our position in Cabinet and then put it to the rest of our Region.

Is that not what democracy is all about.

Right - we have a semi complete ruling on this, and I don't know if we are gonna get anything more. I have waited most of today (i am a few hours ahead of most of you) popping into the NS Forum, but there are no further updates on the thread.

in a later post

These two replys were submitted by Enodia, and as no one else has posted an opinion I think that these count as a ruling. They were posted by a mod even if he says that he doesn't vouch for them all.

Cogitation has not yet returned a verdict on how much leeway is afforded to a UN delegate to eject nations should it be decided that we want to move the region by hand to install a founder.

I would say that the hassle involved in doing this would render it beyond the realms of the practical. We would need to eject the least active nations to move and I for one wouldn't feel comfortable doing this.

We can wait for a more definitive answer, but the initial prognosis is looking bleak.

I don't think we should eject a nation just to install a founder. I would rather take my chances with an invasion.

Micon

I agree with Micon, I'd rather take risk an invasion for now.

If it becomes an issue, then we can look at creating a new region.

A proposal to the mods perhaps.
If a region is griefed, forcing the original inhabitants to create a new region, could the mods then rename that new region to the original name? Especially good if the griefers have created a new region in the old name. Net result is they lose their stolen region and the original region is reinstated.

Sorry Christopholous about not responding right away - RL called...

Here's the Franklin quote - glad to see since 9/11 a lot of people have picked up on it:

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"

I don't understand that, if people think that having a lot of endorsements is adequate security Francos Spain has clearly shown that is an illusion. Granted having a lot of endorsements does make taking the delegate spot harder.

I have not seen any stats on how many more regions now have founders than not. It defies common sense to think that every new region will be corrupted simply because they have a founder. Sure having a trusted founder who turns out not to deserve that trust is a risk. IMHO having only the security of our size is a MUCH greater risk.

I agree but the natives find it a painful experience. Clearly the region will not be that same after that experience. Ever notice that most regions that get invaded start asking questions about how to get a founder? Of course the horse is out of the barn at that point...

Sure that happens in some regions. My point is it also happens in regions with a delegate. Any example of abuse of power seen with a founder has also been seen with a delegate. Yes the delegate has to keep enough endorsments but there are PLENTY of examples were that wasn't a problem.

That's right - but the range of possiblilties also includes keeping the existing form of government. Just because in your region you choose to be a dictator type founder does not mean that is the only path that can be taken. The founder position can be a lot of things including simply being a neutral place to store the region controls.

Now I think you have hit the fundimental point of difference. I DON'T think being on the receving end of an invasion is fun.

Nope, I think the founder should be just a neutral place to store the region controls not an actual player.

I didn't see your responses as being flame baiting. A little heated perhaps. I hope you don't see my responses as flame baiting, not being familiar with your nation, that is not my intent.

lets just agree to disagree on this one :rolleyes:

btw thanks for that quote :D