|
|
Post by Dundee West on Jul 11, 2006 2:38:19 GMT -5
And yes, I can confirm that the temporary region's name will not have 'ABBA' in it.  |
|
|
|
Post by yesmusic on Jul 11, 2006 2:47:46 GMT -5
Okay, then: I'll be gone by tomorrow, and back most likely around the 26th.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ness Snorlaxia on Jul 11, 2006 3:32:14 GMT -5
Well, if this proposal succeds, I was honestly thinking of starting ejections around the first of August. You wouldn't be effected if the date is agreed upon.
Basically, the re-founding process would be this:
-A vote would be held asking people if they are for or against the idea of re-founding. If it succeds, the process mentioned below will begin.
-The region "New Hyrule" would be founded by one of my puppet nations (I would be the founder if you're all OK with that, and the puppet is called "Super Mario Bros"). My UN nation would stay behind in Hyrule and would be the last to leave.
-Hyrule would be passworded and a TG sent out to all nations (I would also send out a mass email to all accounts on the forum), explaining that the region is going to be re-founded and that you need to move out by 1 August or face ejection.
-Once New Hyrule is founded, if I were to be your founder I wouldn't be delegate either. So that means a new delegate would be chosen.
-Then, on 1 August, I will eject all nations remaining in Hyrule (provided I have enough influence to do so). If I don't have enough, or don't have enough UN nations endorsing me, then I'll ask some of you to bring some in to endorse.
-Once everyone is out of Hyrule, I would wait for the region to be deleted. Then, I would go found the region again. That's when everyone can start moving back in.
Basically, that's how the plan would work. Bad things like Gnid mentioned might happen, but we would still have the community and forums.
So does this sound all right? And do you think it's OK to start the vote later today?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dundee West on Jul 11, 2006 3:38:21 GMT -5
Hopefully it will all go as smoothly as possible, if it is done that is. I just think it would be a nice injection of life into the region; a fresh start almost.  |
|
|
|
Post by South Malaysia on Jul 11, 2006 15:38:17 GMT -5
Sounds great to me Ness, yeah i hope it goes as smoothly as it possible can also.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ness Snorlaxia on Jul 11, 2006 17:10:15 GMT -5
So is anyone else OK with the plan listed above? I'd like to hear more responses from other people.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gnidrah on Jul 11, 2006 17:43:28 GMT -5
You already know how I feel about it.  |
|
|
|
Post by Ness Snorlaxia on Jul 11, 2006 17:45:16 GMT -5
Yes, I was asking for other people. |
|
|
|
Post by Buuyo on Jul 11, 2006 19:12:38 GMT -5
I don't like it =P You'd lose too many natiosn to this, whether it be by laziness or otherwise, and there's not guarantee that once you leave the region that someoen else won't come in, take over the delegate position and start rebuilding it <_< You seem to have a few of people like that these days =P
|
|
|
|
Post by Ness Snorlaxia on Jul 11, 2006 19:15:23 GMT -5
Those people have pretty much all been ejected. And yes, Buuyo, we'd loose a lot of nations. But when you think about it this way, those nations were inactive and didn't do much at all. Every region is bound to have a big clump of them. |
|
|
|
Post by anishinabe on Jul 11, 2006 20:27:20 GMT -5
There are risks either way. In a founder-less region, the delegate loses regional influence each time s/he ejects and bans a nation. If a region has a founder, the founder can eject and ban ad infinitum without seeing a change in his/her regional influence. In a player-founded region then, there is generally more stability because even if a delegate is ousted by someone gaining more endorsements, the founder still retains regional control, and can prevent the new delegate from ejecting and/or banning or even becoming an administrator of the forums. This gives the general population of the region the opportunity to regain control or the region from any invader group. Gnid is right in that there are still security issues. As more and more nations move to New Hyrule, the threat to Ness and Hyrule becomes more of a problem from within, particularly from those nations who are UN members but not registered on the forums. The region is still passworded, so invaders from outside are not a problem. The problems are ensuring that all regions leave, that Ness has enough regional influence to eject those that don't in order to let Hyrule die and that no one from within attempts to usurp Ness' delegacy. The last can be helped by having as many UN nations currently on the forum who have endorsed Ness remain until the last moment. Outside help could also be called in if necessary. I'm still not certain what can be done about the first two. Perhaps a vice-delegate who is trusted by Ness and who everyone is asked to endorse (and who must still have slightly fewer endorsements than Ness) could be appointed. This person could temporarily take over as delegate if Ness runs out of enough regional influence to eject the remaining hangers-on. These are only my thoughts. Feel free to poke holes anywhere you like! I'm not proud! |
|
|
|
Post by starman deluxe on Jul 11, 2006 20:32:17 GMT -5
well im gonna throw up the idea of tri-hylians coming back....
he's done it before, what if he does it again?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ness Snorlaxia on Jul 11, 2006 20:46:40 GMT -5
I highly doubt he would come back now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jerry Christ on Jul 11, 2006 20:57:19 GMT -5
On the surface this sounds like a decent idea. But in practice I'm not sure. For one thing, there will be a huge drop in nation membership. I know it's been mentioned already, and I personally don't care much about the issue to begin with, but I bring it up only because so many people here talk so frequently about pushing the number of member nations higher and higher and higher. This seems like a rather abrupt about-face in priorities, which is curious to me.
I also would like a better idea of who might replace Ness as delegate. She is so valuable in that role that I would hate to see her step down just to hold the founder position and throw some occasional bans here and there. If that is what she wants then that's fine with me, but who will replace Ness as delegate? This concerns me.
I don't think I share Gnid's security concerns because like Ness, I think the name of the region has very little importance in the grand scheme of things. If we lose the Hyrule name to a bunch of silly marauders, it wouldn't upset me much, so long as we keep the same core people and all the special qualities that make this region what it is (whatever it's name might be).
That's about all I can offer at the moment, as I am severely jet lagged and weary. Suffice it to say that I don't exactly object to the idea of a re-founding, but I would like to hear a more compelling case for why it's worth the hassle and the risks, and who exactly might be in charge of things after it happens.
|
|
|
|
Post by starman deluxe on Jul 11, 2006 21:04:17 GMT -5
well in terms of someone possibly replacing ness, i think their has to be certain requirements:
1) they have to be active in the forums (haha i so just excluded myself, though i am coming back!)
2) they should probably have been in Hyrule for a while
3) they cant be those new nations that become a UN member with like 5 million people then go around endorsing everyone asking for them do endorse them back, i personally am annoyed by that and i have stopped endorsing anyone who asks for an endorsement with less than 500 million people
(sorry im jus throwing up some suggestions)
|
|
