Thoughts on Founder Supremacy
Written by Westinor
Edited by Vorhollah
Zukchiva, an Arbiter in the East Pacific, recently posted a thought-provoking essay on the concept of “Founder Supremacy” in the University of the East Pacific. This piece specifically argues against the idea of “Wanton Founder Supremacy”, in which a founder of a region unilaterally exercises their power against the wishes of a regional community, usually in a sweeping and/or destructive manner. In light of several recent Gameplay events that have highlighted the consequences of unilateral actions by a Founder, as well as Europeia’s own unique relationship with its Founder and later Governor HEM, there may be no better place to have a fruitful discussion on the merits and faults of the concept of Founder Supremacy.
To echo a disclaimer from Zukchiva’s article, the Governor, not the Founder, of a region now holds absolute authority in a region. However, in line with the terminology of the source article and historic phrasing, all mentions of a “Founder” will refer to the player in the Governor position.
Background
Nations that have founded regions have historically had unopposed power in that region. This is a result of mechanics inherent to Nationstates – Founder nations have permanent Executive authority over a region, and can be overruled by no one. This feature enables founders to safeguard their region from unwanted threat, but also modify and shape their region as they see fit.
As Zukchiva details, the concept of “Founder Supremacy” naturally arises from this mechanical imbalance of power. In the hundreds of communities that inhabit user-created regions on Nationstates, a large majority have had founders who have the capability to exercise absolute control over a region, regardless of the wider regional community’s wishes. Founder Supremacy asserts that the powers granted to the Founder give them the congenital right to wield them as they see fit – an argument that Zukchiva points out is similar to the common raider philosophy that control of the Delegacy implies both mechanical and rightful control over a region. This comes into conflict with commonly-established institutions and norms that limit or outright remove the founder’s ability to wield their power to influence regional politics and governance. When the Founder exercises their powers in spite of these restrictions, Founder Supremacy is enacted.
The Case Against Founder Supremacy
Recent events in Astoria and Thaecia in which Founders have exercised their powers in conflict with the standing law of their region have stirred discussion on the dormant topic of Founder Supremacy. In both cases, many argued that the Founder’s actions were illegitimate and destructive to their community, even as the Founders themselves insisted that it was for the better of their region. Why might some parties disagree with a Founder’s decision to do what they feel is best for the region they created?
Zukchiva argues that the region belongs to the community that resides in it, not the Founder. Specifically, he points out that while the Founder created the region, it is often the combined and protracted efforts of a wider regional community that shapes it into what it is – therefore, the contributions that a community of players make entitle them to the final say in how their region should look, not the Founder. Drawing from theories of fairness and justice, Zukchiva makes it clear that the invested time, resources, and energy a player puts into a region gives them the fundamental right to determine a region’s future,
Zukchiva’s argument lays the foundations for a wider case against Founder Supremacy as well. No region can revolve around a single player forever, no matter how energetic, talented, or skilled they may be. The natural progression of a regional community tends towards a diverse and often conflictual array of voices that end up defining it more than any single player ever could, even if they are synonymous with the region’s name or creation. Excessive adherence to Founder Supremacy stifles the growth of a region, often in the same ways that arguments against meritocratic systems point out – with no real reason to believe that their work in a region will be rewarded, a player is not incentivized to put their time into a regional community.
Furthermore, Founder Supremacy holds the consequence of nullifying a region’s laws and norms. In the case of most unilateral actions taken by a Founder, standing Constitutions or governing documents were outright breached, if not completely revoked, by a Founder in their exercising of power. This can set a dangerous precedent for future generations in a community
Why Founder-Centric Governance?
Despite some clear arguments against a founder-centric method of governance, several successful regions have leaned into the power of the Founder or altogether embraced Founder Supremacy as a wider principle. The League and Concord abandoned a democratic system years ago in favor of a Consulate that leverages the power of the Founder to facilitate governance, while 10000 Islands has long had a “Chief Executive” that holds power over the region. Multiple practical benefits come with having a powerful and present Founder, which may explain why Founder-centric government or Founder Supremacy continue as valid methods of regional administration.
As many long-lived regions may be familiar with, a Founder that can legally and straightforwardly utilize their power can stave off conflicts and bad actors looking for trouble. The League and Concord are no strangers to this tale – early offshoots of The League’s original region often threatened the safety and security of The League’s regional community, and having a Founder and eventually Consulate that could weed out and remove players looking for trouble facilitated growth in a region that struggled with internal strife. When critical junctures face a region, having an assertive hand can help with making decisions and seizing the day – as the League is very familiar with, having been the most well-prepared regional community in the face of the Frontier Update, as well as having navigated a 2021 revival on the interregional stage with much thanks to founder Quebecshire.
Founders that can actively leverage their role in regional politics may also stimulate a region’s culture – Europeians are plenty familiar with HEM and the monumental work he has done for the region, and much of the region’s inside jokes and lasting culture are synonymous with him. Founders can put key players in an effective position to uniquely influence regional politics in a way that can allow them to survive often rough and harrowing early conflicts, giving them the time and space to grow as a community until they are stable.
If Founders put in an inordinate amount of work, then, should they be allowed to leverage their position to shape the region they have so long and effectively cared for? Most active Europeians are familiar with Andusre, founder of Thaecia and an important player in the discord that enveloped Thaecia months ago, having initiated a coup of its standing government following long-term concerns about the region’s activity. Undoubtedly, Andusre has put in near-unmatched levels of effort into shaping the region into a dominant interregional player for years, and is the most notable face of the region’s community. If a Founder is active, involved, and in touch with the heartbeat of their region, would it not make sense to allow them to regulate the community and region as they see fit?
Solutions, Compromise, and the Future
Founder Supremacy will continue to exist so long as Founders have inherent mechanical control over a region’s permissions. However, attempts to curb, nullify, or compromise with the concept of Founder Supremacy exist. The League’s Consulate creates a multi-person system that manages the executive powers of the Founder. Many regions share the Founder account, ensuring representation in exercises of Founder authority and setting disincentives to seize the Foundership for oneself, though this practice comes with danger in both IC and OOC respects. Regions like 10000 Islands have made a convention of passing down the Foundership, an inherent act of trust and investment in the community’s future that can instill confidence in the Founder’s proper usage of their authority. Measures to keep a Founder on a tight leash and compromises to ensure Founder Supremacy does not spiral out of control or aligns with the wishes of a community can be fruitful, but they may also be dangerous and divisive.
The Frontier Update has also done more than just throw the terminology of this concept into disarray. Governors may now appoint Successors, and more importantly, regions can now opt to be founded as Frontiers, meaning they have no Founding Authority at their inception. This poses different questions for the morality of Founder Supremacy now that having a Founder is a choice, not a condition, and with the ability to transition a Frontier region into one with a Governor, colloquially known as a Stronghold and back, the questions of the legitimacy of an appointed Governor and how a community might take steps to remove a Governor also exist. Europeia, as one of the first regions to remove a Governor synonymous and important to our region, lies at the frontier of this debate, and any discussion on it should involve, if not start with, our community.
Last edited:
