November 2015 Issue
Interview with Cormac Stark, Founder and Konungr of Asgard
Jakker: What made you decide to remain in NS after your return with the TWP coup?
Cormac: Basically, the same thing that has made me decide to remain in NationStates far longer than I ever thought I would: I've made some lasting friendships here and I want to continue playing NationStates with those people. A secondary reason is that I didn't like the reasons for my retirement and the way I departed, and I felt I still had things left to do in NationStates. I didn't feel done, essentially, though I very much believed I was when I had decided to retire a month earlier.
Jakker: One of your primary focuses right now is the revival of Asgard. How has that been? What has driven you to bring it back to life?
Cormac: Asgard has always felt like unfinished business to me since the way its first "incarnation," if you will, ended in 2012 under very unfortunate circumstances, including the destruction of our forum by the person to whom I had entrusted the Founder account and root administration of the forum. So partially what has driven me to bring it back to life is that I've always wanted to bring it back to life, and this isn't the first time I've tried. This is by far the most energetic attempt and, thus far, the most successful.
I would have to say it's going pretty well in some respects and not so well in others. Recruitment is going extremely well; we've climbed from three nations to 177 in less than a month, which is the most rapid population growth Asgard has ever seen. On the other hand, as is the case for many regions in modern NationStates, forum activity is an issue. Our "active" forum population -- if you can even call it active -- is comprised almost exclusively of existing gameplayers who have come here from other regions by word of mouth recruitment. Newcomers who have come here from the Feeders by telegram recruitment aren't that interested in participating in an off-site forum.
This lack of forum activity has led to an informal referendum by regional poll on whether to shift regional government and activities completely on-site. That referendum is pretty much evenly divided, which means in all likelihood it's going to come down to my own judgment call as Founder. I'm leaning toward shifting everything on-site so stay tuned to see how that is implemented in the coming days.
Jakker: Has The Miniluv Messenger changed how people perceive you? How are you still able to obtain private information?
Cormac: I'm not sure it's changed how people perceive me, though I think it's contributed to the development of various perceptions people have of me. These perceptions of me had already started before I ever created The Miniluv Messenger, as a result of a player even less trustworthy than me leaking the existence of and logs from a private IRC channel called #miniluv that included several of my NationStates friends and me. The channel was really just an informal place to hang out and chat, but the leaked logs included some plotting against FRA influence in Spiritus, so due to that and due to most channel participants being prominent gameplayers, the channel came to be seen as some kind of diabolical conspiracy. The Miniluv Messenger was really born out of that ridiculous conspiracy theory and has since taken on a life of its own.
In hindsight, I guess it's sort of ironic that the leaking of the existence of #miniluv -- which outraged me -- led to the creation of The Miniluv Messenger, which specializes in reporting leaked information.
As to how I obtain information, it's nothing mysterious or ingenious: People just give it to me, and usually without prompting. Miniluv 2015 is basically the Anonymous movement of NationStates: We're everywhere and nowhere all at once. We have no membership but anyone can be a member. The Messenger would be nothing without its sources.
Jakker: You seem to serve as the person who says things in GP that others want to say, but don't. Do you feel like players play the game too safely? Why?
Cormac: I do feel like they play the game too safely, and it's contributing to the rapid decline of gameplay, along with technical disadvantages that haven't been corrected by site administration. It's 2015, for [violet]'s sake, can we get an R/D game that actually works and the ability to simultaneously run multiple regional polls? But I digress. Yes, people play the game way too safely and I can't at all understand why. Risk is interesting. Change is interesting. Conflict is interesting. The best way to make this game thrive is to keep it interesting, but it's not going to be interesting for many people with everyone sitting around doing nothing much but having festivals with spam games and chatting about how great NationStates used to be in the early 2000s. Early NationStates was great because those players didn't play it safe and boring. Let's get back to that.
Jakker: You appear to have strong feelings against NPO. Do you believe that people have let Pacifica off too easily after the Lazarus coup? What do you expect to happen in the future?
Cormac: People have let the NPO off way too easily and it's got a lot to do, again, with playing NationStates safe. There is, among many players, an intense aversion to interregional conflict of any kind that is really detrimental to the game -- both because it keeps the game boring and simultaneously encourages bored players to instigate interpersonal conflicts with each other instead. Everyone wants to just put the Lazarus coup in the past, whether the NPO has made any substantive change to warrant that or not, because conflict with the NPO is a lot less appealing to them than getting along with a regime that has no respect for the sovereignty of other Feeders and Sinkers and never has. I'm very disappointed in the Feeders and Sinkers that have re-established relations with the NPO, or never severed relations at all. We'll see how that works out for them in the long run; we saw how it turned out for The South Pacific in 2013 and Lazarus earlier this year.
Jakker: Do you have any goals left to accomplish in NS?
Cormac: My goal is, and I think has always been, to make NationStates gameplay more interesting. To engage more players, to make the game more exciting for them, to give them compelling reasons to want to participate. User-created regions are supposed to be, among other things, a great tool for experimentation in NationStates. It's clear to me that serious changes are necessary in NationStates gameplay right now, including a re-thinking of our reliance on off-site activity, so I expect to be experimenting with how to make on-site government and activities work in Asgard.
I have some other goals, but I wouldn't be me if I told you what all of them are. I'm nothing if not full of surprises.
Regional Officers: Player Survey
Feeder Elegarth, Delegate of Feeder The West Pacific
As a feeder, do you feel like the addition of ROs has strengthened your region’s security?
In general, I personally believe ROs are a double edge sword that each region must consider and use carefully. However, in the particular case of The West Pacific, it has been a very useful tool for both security and RMB maintenance. As a feeder, we can easily get troublemakers spawning often, and the existence of a team of ROs that can take care of spam and banjections improve the region's style.
What should the ultimate goal of ROs be for a region?
I think that depends on each region, their game play style, their goals and what not. Is hard to say what can or should they be used to. The potential applications of ROs are many!
How has using ROs helped your region? Hurt your region?
Well, as I mentioned before, it has improved our RMB maintenance and the handling of spammers and ill-intentioned users. We've always have many players involved with reporting to the MODs rule violations, but now they can also suppress undesired spam or inappropriate content, and handle troublemakers while the delegate is not online. Instead of having to wait a couple hours, we can now get those sorted in a couple minutes.
It was also highly useful during the Zombie Event, as it allowed us to promptly remove zombie empires and killer nations from the region, we had the maximum number of ROs at a point, and that was a part of our success in reaching 3rd place in the event.
Any additions that you would like to see to ROs?
I can't think of any right now. I guess if the annexation is ever introduced in the game, it would be nice to set the ROs so that annexed regions can have governors. Then again, is just a random idea I just had. Not necessarily something I wish for to happen now, or ever.
User Created Regions with Founders
Vancouvia, Founder of The Western Isles
What should the ultimate goal of ROs be for a region?
The ultimate goal should be to ease the burden of founders/executive delegates and allow previously existing regional officers to actually be able to conduct their duties i.e an officer with duties concerning foreign affairs can now actually accept embassy requests.
How has using ROs helped your region? Hurt your region?
It's helped in that most powers matched well with already existing offices, only now it's possible for them to autonomously execute their duties
Any additions that you would like to see to ROs?
No, they're aesthetically pleasing and get the job done.
Would the use of ROs change if the region became founderless?
Probably have more officers with border control.
King Nephmir II, Founder of Auralia
What should the ultimate goal of ROs be for a region?
To further extend a region's government powers in order to make the region more democratic, or to reward the active and trusted region members for following the absolute regime, depending on what you're in to.
How has using ROs helped your region? Hurt your region?
Help: Increase of government activity, and at least one governing member is typically online at any given time to eject spammers and trouble makers. I can't really say that it has done anything to hurt it, however (as of yet).
Any additions that you would like to see to ROs?
Perhaps the ability to transfer the founder nation. The founder could spend influence equivalent to that of password protecting the region with a hidden password to do so. It would make refounds less messy and risky. Of course there's always the chance that a Raider implant could be the new founder, but when refounding Raiders can snipe your refound anyway with the way it is already. If the founder wants to switch power, that's his or her choice. Of course, the original founder should still be recorded as the original founder somewhere. Founderless regions would need to be refounded in the normal fashion.
It would be nifty if "ROs only" could be set as a restriction for polls, too, along with "embassy regions", leading to an interesting combination of restrictions that could be used.
Any other thoughts/questions/concerns/compliments to bring up to game admin?
I've been looking forward to ROs for a long time! It turned out better than I expected and I can't wait to see how the annexation feature turns out as well (assuming it happens in my NS lifetime).
Would the use of ROs change if the region became founderless?
Not really (in theory)- The WA Delegate would theoretically initiate pre-determined emergency procedures to make the co-founder take the delegate seat as the new head of the region until the founder returns, or indefinitely if the founder doesn't. All other ROs would be elected democratically as usual.
LGBT Equality, Founder of Gay
What should the ultimate goal of ROs be for a region?
To enhance a region's mission, even if that mission is as simple as surviving or prospering.
How has using ROs helped your region? Hurt your region?
Our Regional Secretary was able to suppress the posts of a griefer before I, the Founder, returned to the region. He now has border control, too, to be able decisively to deal with such persons.
Any additions that you would like to see to ROs?
I am interested in exploring having the ability to give someone besides the WAD executive authority. Such would need to be handled thoughtfully so as not to interfere with the R/D aspect of the game.
Any other thoughts/questions/concerns/compliments to bring up to game admin?
This doesn't have to do with RO, but we have been griefed now by 4 separate nations from the same player, all of whom have been banned from the region. They have all been reported to the Mods, but so far only one of the nations has been deleted. IMHO, after 3x of using other nations to get around a regional ban, this player's IP address should be DOSed.
Would the use of ROs change if the region became founderless?
If I were the WAD of a Founderless region, I would set up 12 separate nations with border control capacity to have the best shot at repelling any invasions. Likewise, as things stand, if I were a raider WAD of a Founderless region, I would do the same thing to repel a counter-invasion. If, as above, a region's WAD could appoint another executive, that would essentially create a Co- or Vice-Founder. I would think there would have to be serious limitations on such as not to change the R/D dynamic. Perhaps a region would be limited to two executives, for a Founderless region, the prime one remaining the WAD, who could, after a period of time, strip the executive authority from the Vice-Founder.
IMHO, it would need to be set up so that in a Founderless region, the Vice-Founder could not eject the Executive WAD. If a region's Founder were to CTE or be deleted after appointing a Vice-Founder, any WAD would become the prime Executive as in any other Founderless region. I'd think a Vice-Founder would need to use influence like a WAD, so that a successful raid would not enable a Vice-Founder to banject all nations and refound at the next update. This all would require some serious discussion with input from people more heavily into R/D than I am. The consensus may be that such is untenable.
As things stand now, the border control agents do not have to expend influence to banject new nations, which seriously tilts the game in favour of raiders. I would suggest this needs to be revisited, either limiting the number of border control agents and/or requiring influence to be expended to banject any nation.
Goddess Relief Office, Founder of Yggdrasil and Valhalla
What should the ultimate goal of ROs be for a region?
More people to help manage the region for better security and greater activity. I think having more than 2 people is esp. important for larger regions.
How has using ROs helped your region? Hurt your region?
Too early to say but I don't see how it can hurt.
Any other thoughts/questions/concerns/compliments to bring up to game admin?
Graphically, it would be better to have ROs listed lower on the WFE. It is incredibly distracting from the actual WFE and takes away attention from the region's description. Either make it lower (beneath Dispatches), or make it collapsible.
Would the use of ROs change if the region became founderless?
ROs would help to ensure things get done even if Delegate becomes inactive. However, to take on the security role the Admins need to implement changes to ensure invaders cannot dismiss ROs immediately upon taking the delegateship.
Alexandros o Megas, Founder of Hellenic Civilization
RO's addition in game makes it more pluralistic and it will at the end help to increase the level of activity in a region or reward those nations already active. So I have found it a positive change.
In Hellenic Civilization we do not have much activity but we have many puppets, that historically are part of the Region.
Through RO's I actually rewarded current WA Delegate and those actively posting in our RMB.
A Founder may become sometimes - rare and unpleasant - inactive and CTE but for a logical period as he may resurrect and comes back the Region's character should not change (i.e. an illness of Founder or a long trip etc.). But at the end after a logical time period - like for new nations with the name of pre-existing nations - the RO's powers should be increased to some of those the Founder had.
Another idea is the Founder to be able to appoint 1-2 nations as his successors in case of CTE and that to be permanent if long time passes; successors could be among RO's or not.
Vandoosa, Founder of Glorious Nations of Iwaku
What should the ultimate goal of ROs be for a region?
To kick out scary mean raiders like Jakker!
How has using ROs helped your region? Hurt your region?
So far zero change here in Iwaku.. though I've only appointed one to see what happens..
Any other thoughts/questions/concerns/compliments to bring up to game admin?
Make it where founders influence is displayed as GOD! Because founders technically are God of a region.. Also having God on my nation page will inflate my ego to Rifty levels.
Would the use of ROs change if the region became founderless?
Nope.. they can still stop tag raids.. if they are not lazy that is..
Founderless User Created Regions Ecuadorian Love, Delegate of The Union
As a founderless region, do you feel like the addition of ROs has strengthened your region’s security?
ROs have yet to have any consequences, so far only benefits.
What should the ultimate goal of ROs be for a region?
Main benefit is that I can now have my ROs eject trouble makers in the region when I'm not around, or if I want to conserve my regional influence.
How has using ROs helped your region? Hurt your region?
Furthermore, in the future we plan to refound, but we still plan on having a democratic region, where the elected delegate is the main leading figure in the region. In the past this meant giving the delegate an executive position, which makes the region vulnerable to raids by DEN and your friends and TBH. Now however, as we refound, we will make the delegate position non-exe, and simply create another office with fill executive powers, that will be awarded to the delegate. This way we can't get raided.
Mikeswell, Delegate of Nationstates
The only real position that has the power to affect the security of the region seemingly is border control. All other positions are nice and can increase player activity. I like the idea of having a puppet to banject nations but I'm not sure how effective it will be in a crisis.
As a founderless region, do you feel like the addition of ROs has strengthened your region’s security?
Marginally
What should the ultimate goal of ROs be for a region?
Increased player participation
Any other thoughts/questions/concerns/compliments to bring up to game admin?
could they make me the Founder of the region?
Otaku Stratus, Delegate of Japan
Why haven’t you implemented ROs in your founderless region?
We're still considering it. There's very little participation in the region right now but there's a lot of interest in using this system, by a few people at least.
What changes would encourage you to implement ROs if any?
Basically as soon as someone volunteers. Right now the most qualified right-hand-man is someone who only shows up a few times a month.
What should the ultimate goal of ROs be for a region?
I think to allow more people to participate and have something useful to do, and take a bit of the responsibility off of the delegate, who has to sleep SOMEtime
Any additions that you would like to see to ROs?
They're pretty good at present. Basically I want to have more people in charge of security (as many as possible) and potentially someone in charge of recruiting
Voga, Delegate of The United Reddit Nations
We have not implemented ROs in our founderless region because of the small size and amount of activity which goes on in our region. Because we have implemented safeguards against raiding, such as requiring a regional password in order to join. In order for the United Reddit Nations to implement ROs, we would first require far more activity or a great influx of new members, to the point where our WA Delegate (i.e. the People's Empire of Voga) would not be able to undertake administrative duties alone.
At this time, as previously stated, it is not necessary. The ultimate goal of any Regional Officer ought to be to serve as an extension of both the will of the region in question and of the WA Delegate from that region, helping to execute administrative responsibilities and to moderate posts on that region. As things stand, the People's Empire of Voga does not see any additions to ROs as necessary, though it is not opposed to their idea nor to their implementation in the United Reddit Nations should the need arise.
Hawkswind, Delegate of St Abbaddon
We have not implemented ROs because we have had a loss of WA members, and so far we have not had replacement members show.
The only change I would insert is a way to overturn or reject a RO's choice, usually with a 2/3 majority vote.
Ultimate goal should be to make it easier for things to get done in a region, instead of relying on one person.
The Stalker, Delegate of Hell
As a founderless region, do you feel like the addition of ROs has strengthened your region’s security?
I believe it has for Hell, however I don't think this will be universally true for founderless regions. I expect more of a bell curve effect. ROs in the hands of experienced players / communities will allow for greater defense in founderless regions, but in the hands of less experienced communities runs of the risk of having it work against them.
What should the ultimate goal of ROs be for a region?
To better allow regions to design their own regional governments in which officials can actually help run the region.
Secondly I think it's function should be pushed towards the goal of allowing natives to fight back against raids, in such a way the dynamic shifts to natives fighting raiders themselves rather than defenders fighting raiders in the native's home.
How has using ROs helped your region? Hurt your region?
So far the ROs have helped our region and allow for greater shared responsibility of running and defending the region. No longer a burden for a single person, but the duty of a collective.