Post

A lot of people would rather be in regions with founders, not I, I've always avoided them as much as possible. It just depends how you wish to play the game. I think it is fun to protect a region from invasion, other people who find more fun in roleplaying (acting out wars by posting on the NS forums) or debating real-life issues in the General forum of the NS forums generally prefer regions with founders because then they can pretty well ignore the region page and go straight to the forums. Invasions of large regions (regions with 15 or more delegate endorsements) are fairly rare, and with the help of defenders (sort of like anti-raiders, they use the same tactics to put the right people back in the delegate seat) it all generally ends in a couple days or so. Generally, that is.

I've always enjoyed the regional politics and inter-regional politics of this game, in fact before I was delegate here, I was delegate of The South Pacific for the last couple months, and that was/is the second biggest region in the game. The politics of the raider/defender clashes are so old and in-depth after three years I'm still learning something new everyday. And regions without founders tend to have more interesting political histories and potential because with a founder, the founder's side always wins if there is any sort of disagreement. :P

As far as extra security, I could put a password on the region to protect from invasions, but, that's generally a bad idea because if new nations can't get in as old nations die we become smaller and smaller. Most of those less than fifty BFI or historical regions that are left are passworded without a delegate, so, no one will ever be able to enter them again since there is no way to take the password down (unless one of the nations left inside remembers what the password was). So I'm not going to do that, it is only safety in the short term, it creates much more long-term problems.