Announcement NATIONS | FEEDBACK & POLL

What do you think on the transferring of nation leaders?

  • 3. A nation leader should be able to transfer the nation to whoever they want.

    Votes: 16 29.1%
  • 2. A nation leader transfer should be able to be stopped, if they deviate from succession.

    Votes: 24 43.6%
  • 1. Every nation leader change must be ratified by their council (or populace).

    Votes: 15 27.3%

  • Total voters
    55

Rumpo

Owner
Joined
Jan 22, 2020
Messages
253
Reaction score
1,467
Username
Rumpo
Character Name
Rumpo
Discord
Rumpo#1929
Over the past few weeks there has been a few leadership switches in nations. In doing this, it has brought up a few questions that we would like the input of the community about. This time it will not be as clear cut as me providing example rules, or suggestion rules because I wish to know where the community stand before developing (or not developing) rules based around the following circumstances.

We have summed it up to three key points which we wish to gather opinions on:

NATION LEADER TRANSFERS:
The question to ask regarding the transfer of nation leader, is that - should it be something solely decided by the nation leader? Or should others have a feasible way to stop their nation leader haphazardly transferring nation ownership.

Suggested Idea: A base of one idea that I had personally, is that every nation must post a line of succession - and if a nation leader trys to impose a new leader that deviates from the given line of succession there is some way (perhaps a vote?) for the council to put a halt to this process.

NATION VAULTS AND TREASURES:
Our policy, up to this point, is that the vaults are owned by the nation and not the player. This worked fine, when for example, it was one person leaving the nation and trying to take all of the vault items with them. However, there was obviously some overlooked flaws in this ruling; namely at the Rheynland -> Calendale take-over, because it was an unexpected, or rather "forced" take-over then it begs the question of who exactly the vault should fall to?

Should this be a subjective decision based on the circumstances or should it be split up in to two different categories (peaceful and forceful take overs) which have different verdicts or outcomes depending on which category it could potentially fall under.

Suggested Idea: If after a change in leadership, the grand majority of people who contributed to the vault leave, then they make take a portion of the vault with them (e.g. 75%).

NATION RECYCLING:
Do you think nations should be allowed to be recycled? The question is pretty self explanatory but for those who do not understand this concept. It is the process of someone selling their nation to another person, whereby the other person has the intention of putting the nation through a complete rebrand (e.g. new location, build, culture, lore, name, leadership etc.). Should there be limits on this?

As previously mentioned, please comment your feedback, opinions or other ideas as community input on these rules is very important as these sorts of policies can heavily impact roleplay and nations as a whole.
 
Last edited:

Lionbileti

Builder
Joined
Mar 24, 2020
Messages
33
Reaction score
487
Nation leaders should be able to be overthrown and there should be change of leadership wars.
 

Cell2

Application
Joined
Jun 10, 2020
Messages
69
Reaction score
1,251
Username
Cell2, NotCell2, CellToo
Character Name
Alice Hadlee
Discord
lorena#7689
Nation leader transfer - As Lionbileti said, there should be more options for people to take over such as NL's being overthrown, that would create quite a stir and would be interesting for RP. I do like the idea of the line of succession and believe that should be implemented. Along with that, a way for people to change the line of succession.

Nation Vault - I agree that the vault shouldn't belong to the player, with that people who did contribute to is should get compensation for adding to nation funds.

Nation recycling - I think nation recycling shouldn't be the first option a player should be given, as it kind of implies that you can create a nation and later sell it off for double the money you bought it for. Nations should be something that should be passed down to other people, taken over like how kings got overthrown in older times. I definitely agree that there should be limits to nation recycling and maybe it being a last resort option.
 

AdventureApollo

Application
Joined
Nov 27, 2020
Messages
27
Reaction score
43
Username
AdventureApollo
Character Name
Enrico Caetti
Discord
AdventureApollo#5610
Nation Leader Transfers:
I do think that each nation should have a predetermined form of succession, especially if a nation leader wants to leave FRP forever. (as they might just give the position to somebody for fun instead of the best choice) The list of successors should be determined by the leader alongside the high-ranking citizens and Senior FRP staff. Somebody who isn't on the succession list shouldn't be able to succeed. Citizens should have the choice of overthrowing a heavily disliked leader. Though only by a vote amongst high-ranking citizens, other nation leaders, and Senior FRP staff and if such a vote succeeds, a civil war should be allowed for the nation leader role for someone who is on the succession list.

Nation Vaults and Treasury:
If a system of succession is used as I described above, dethroned leaders should be limited to only taking about 25% of the nation's treasury with them. I don't believe that exiled individuals other than the former leader should take any percentage of the treasury. They had the choice of joining the rebellion, and they decided not to.

Nation Recycling:
No, not within a short period. If the nation initially grew as the pre-existing culture and style, they shouldn't be allowed to immortality change. They're just deleting an old nation and creating a new one. Slight changes occurring over a long time are good for these types of changes. Such as the system of government slowly moving from democracy to monarchy. Or the possible new name of a nation gradually becoming more commonplace in dialogue as a synonym over a few weeks and overtaking the former one as the popular name. Builds should also change gradually over a period of time. I'll use Promdor/Alba as a sort of example of all of this.
Our original name was the "Order of Saint Alba" of Promdor, over many weeks we became larger and started using Promdor as a location name more and more until we renamed ourselves to the Holy Republic of Promdor.
Our builds followed something similar to that. Our original build style for tier 1 and first tier 2 was a Portuguese one. In our second tier 2 build we started including some tudor style buildings in town, but still had the Portuguese houses. By tier 3 we became all tudor.
Gradual changes in culture/build/leadership are good for rp purposes as they seem more realistic and don't appear as odd to the people rp'ing.

EDIT: Formatting
 

_Tepes

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
13
Reaction score
44
Username
Gram
Character Name
Tindomiel Sercenona
Discord
Gram#9380
Nation Leader Transfer:

In short, I agree that there should be a predetermined line of succession in the event that the NL spot needs to be handed down. This should be roleplayed out as well as kept where those in staff and the nation have access to it. Like mentioned by a few before, revolts should be an option with enough legitimate support if the people don't agree on the next leader. That being said, if you're not a republic of sorts, citizens should not have much say in the RP line of succession. It should be based off of IC relationships or titles OR through merit. This will make it so the nation goes to people that have committed time and effort both OOC and IC to the nation and keep it out of the hands of people that either don't want it or shouldn't have it. I do not think every nation should be forced to act like a republic by making all citizens or the council ratify a change.

Nation Vaults & Treasury:

Nation vaults should not be emptied by leaders that are leaving. I think that if a nation leader steps down, they are entitled to, at most, 10% of the coin in the coffers, no matter how much they donated previously. The money goes towards the nation and therefore should stay in the nation. Plain and simple. I've seen multiple times where a leader will empty the coffers and then leave the nation to the next bloke.

Nation Recycling:

Although I have mixed feelings about this I think it is best that the answer to this is no. This should not be allowed anymore and should not be considered a grey area. If this is going to happen, the nation should be deleted naturally and then this would allow for another nation slot to open up. As Apollo explained earlier with Alba ---> Promdor, gradual and roleplayed out changes are perfectly natural and fine.

Nation Creation:

I'm unsure as to what the current process is for creating a nation so feel free to let me know how that works but I believe from now on, nations should have a minimum number of people (20-25?) that have been on the server for at least a month to form said nation with them. This avoids people bringing in brand new players en masse to create a nation and then them being inactive afterwards, making another dead nation. They should also have detailed lore that explains their government, culture, and what type of nation they are (i.e, Maritime, trade, militaristic, religious, etc.,)

I also believe that nations that would roleplay as a company/duchy (but still have the plugin nation) should not have their own independent nation in the plugin and instead should have to go through the process of obtaining a fort region, making greater use of fort regions. Examples that are similar to this, but not quite the same, are; Fyrmana's fort region which has been given to Cepheid and other ex-Rheynland members to act as a duchy and Aellen's fort region, Griffin's Roost, being given to my group in order to roleplay out building a nation step by step. I think both of those examples are great in the sense that they promote RP to actually obtain a nation instead of people just randomly forming it with little to no RP.

Edit: Still unsure as to what the circumstances behind Ynslee are but I do not see why it still is a separate entity from Calendale when Ynslee was created for the sole purpose of the rebels and is now being claimed by Calendale. Not sure why it needs to occupy a nation slot and could instead just be a fort region. Just my opinion.
 
Last edited:

TryaxReck

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2020
Messages
30
Reaction score
140
Nation Leader Transfers

Perfectly fine with a line of succession / a council or list of individuals given the right to select the next heir. I think that'd be fine and well. Perhaps putting that a part of the nation application process, like: "How does your nation decide new rulers?" And then holding them to that lore.

Nation Vaults

Seems reasonable to believe that a nation's treasury belongs to the nation. However, as most NLs can state their personal finances and the national treasury are more often intertwined to the point of them being one and the same. Perhaps this too shall be dictated by the individuals of each nation? IE, the "...nation's treasury and leaders personal finances are one and the same: The ruler may do with the funds as they see fit."

Nation Recycling

As i'm sure everyone knows, I more or less got my nation through the process of recycling. And as many others suggest, I did. I created builds that reflected the construction of the town, such as pieces of wall, cranes, dirt mounds, etc. I introduced the ethnic group that was poised to replaced the original Brennans, and had RPed as them over a period of weeks to cement the fact of their growing influence. I had made events and organized things to further encourage converting culture, all leading to the buildup of the eventual restructuring of a faulty state into the new, better one.

I did this however, from nation recycling. I was denied the ability to make my own nation, starting out as a T1, and so I was forced to purchase Brenna. It was not my first choice. I didn't try to create a shortcut, I simply pursued the only option left to me, trying to prove that my ideas weren't good enough for the server. And it worked, well!

So from my perspective, staff either must modify the existing nation creation criteria to reduce recycling to a non-issue OR promote the culture shift of one group to another and help support them through that process.

Added note: Nation recycling at it's most extreme (evicting everyone, moving the nation tile, etc.) should not be allowed. Period.

In Summary

Roleplay it! Things like this are a case by case basis, and furthermore should be treated as such. If you want a plugin to manage it, so be it, but as long as nations are player run endeavors it should be handled and hashed out one-on-one. There are only 11 nations out there, figuring out a style that works for them and their player-base shouldn't be generalized into a strict, rigid ruleset.
 

Swifty

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
55
Reaction score
113
Just like PROs (primary region owner) on redacted, NLs have the ownership over a certain charter. ROs or "region-owners" should be allocated by said NL who may place a vote on who is the successor. Additionally, this enables a couping system, if the NL puts ROs in and they decide the NL is unfit to lead at any point in their reign they must have a vote, the majority wins. Each NL should need 5 ROs to run a Nation.

I know some players and staff won't want to "copy this system" but a lot of our already implemented systems and rules have already been done by loads of other servers anyways. Additionally, we can add new rules into this system to improve it and make it unique to FRP.

This enables:
1) Better rp if someone wishes to rp as a tyrant.
2) Better structure for the general populus of a Nation.
3) NLs cannot just bully their group, and have to be fit to keep their place.

Just a suggestion!
 

Sukitoru

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2020
Messages
206
Reaction score
662
Username
Sukitoru
Character Name
Kine Lidomast
I'll be simple and consice

Brenna being bought was hilarious. Really. Actually funny. Tryax has revived it into something greater than before.

Though alternatively I think that whole idea of just selling off a nation and or giving it away willy nilly as opposed to rply or in a manner that doesn't "befit" the transferrence of a nation is pretty loopholey. Circumvents the part where you have to go through staff approval to do something, from my POV. No idea what went on behind the scenes, but (although again, it was funny and Tryax/Milkyi repaired Brenna's shit state in a good way! Good work, Tryax and Milkyi.) maybe it shouldn't happen again.
 

Ryanark

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
56
Reaction score
129
I don't think NL transfers from within the nation (not including revolutions and coups etc, there should be separate rules written about that imo) should not be able to happen overnight. I like the idea of having the council or senate of a nation ratify the new ruler since it is realistic and could in most cases be a slow process, preventing overnight changes.
The reason why I think the process should be slow is mainly to prevent sudden takeovers of nations and also to add time for both the council/senate and the people to consider and reflect on a new leader. Plus, if we're thinking realistically again I don't think the process was fast irl either, but rather bureaucratic and with a lot of "red tape".
 

Discord

Join us on Discord

Latest profile posts

Looking for moderators :D
4CD
JRISUFUAIFIEIDH shizai really strikes again PLS
Cad
Im a light ranger.
4CD
hi media team.. we deserve fantasyrp wheat breaking asmr.. 🙀 i expect it asap
Cardiovascular wrote on Immortalshadowz's profile.
Timothy Sheriff: Shadow Ranger.

Forum Statistics

Threads
5,732
Messages
21,529
Members
5,818
Latest member
krown
Top