NationStates Jolt Archive

We recently took charge of the region Byzantium and expelled one nation from it. We changed the regional password shortly afterwards. We were a "native" nation so to speak, as we had been there throughout the prior delegate's regime and simply inherited the delegate position, but then we were called "invaders" by other nations (due to the fact that we have membership in the ACC) and were immediately ordered by the mods to mass-telegram the password to every nation in the region (spamming in a sense) or to risk being deleted for "griefing." We threw our arms into the air, surrendering, and decided that the best option was to remove regional PW-protection completely. We will re-instate it if it proves to be a security risk, at which point we'd generally expect the mods to understand the need for it. Otherwise, what: we'd be deleted? It's ludicrous. Each time we change a password, we shouldn't have to telegram the change to 30 nations who lived there when we arrived (some of whom no longer do.)

Now, several appeals of ours to the NS moderators after one of OUR nations (Pilmour) was expelled from North America were ignored. North America keeps our nation on the ban list for no legitimate NS reason (we never spammed, never flamed, never griefed, they just didn't like us) and they banned us because of that. Simply, that is unfair. Our expulsion was unfair. North America is also PW-protected. That, too, is unfair.

The question here is, do people or do they not have the right to ban? We believe that banning (in itself) is damaging to the spirit of the game, as well as obnoxious. But we also must appeal to the Moderators to be evenhanded. Several weeks ago our mother nation (Pilmour) appealed to the mods to be permitted back into North America. Our request was not answered. Now, when a nation who doesn't even want to enter Byzantium complains that it is password-protected to the Mods, we are forced to alter our own strategy and risk losing the first delegate seat we've ever held.

We wish for the mods to make it eminently clear, for once and for all, whether or not banning is legitimate. I am sure that the Mods have had case precedent, this and that, yada yada, but quite frankly, we've used the "moderator intervention" request form time and again and at none of those times were our requests even responded to, much less honored by action.

So: Can we ban, or can we not? We want it spelled out clearly, definitively, and simply--- rather than having 45 pages of forum to scroll through to find "past precedent" in Moderator decisions. We think that a simpler game will be a game which is more fun to play.

My issues haven't ever been addressed, and it is time that they are--- quite simply, I'd like to see the mods make a decision which frees up the game a bit, whether it is a blanket "ban on banning" or completely condoning it. Either-or.

Sincerely,

Pilmour Ambassadors (& Pilmour.)

You can ban, as long as it's not Natives you're banning...

Precisely. But we were a native of North America, too, and we were banned. And our requests for re-instatement were utterly ignored. So we're asking, we'd like to have the nation "Pilmour" permitted back IN north America, and if that is not possible, we would like to password-protect our home region.

It is a contradiction.
Currently, the logic runs along the lines of "North America is entitled to ban natives, and you are not."We'd like to see the Mods make a decision which will say, "North America was justified to ban, and so are you," or "North America is not entitled to ban, and neither are you." Either way, we're happy. We just want a decision.

The Byzantium situation is a very messy one. The last native delegate was The discworld, actually, who took over from Mistra when s/he was ejected from the UN for rule violations. Here's my view on what has happened recently:

Soon after that happened, Capitalizts (from region The Exclusive Capitalizt Zone) invaded the region, in which you participated as an invader. Then the Roman Empire invaded and attempted to get the situation under control. They succeeded to get the delegacy, but their communications with natives just went nowhere, so they ended up just leaving and giving the delegacy back to Capitalizts in the process. After that Capitalizts figured he was more useful back in The ECZ (supporting their bid for MACTO membership), and he gave the delegacy to one of his soldiers: Pilmour Ambassadors. Pilmour Ambassadors subsequently claims the region as Atlantic Alliance territory, and pretends to be a native Byzantian to circumvent regulations regarding invasions.

This is what the Mods told you:
NationStates Moderators
We have received a report of your violating the invasion rules. The 'loopholes' that you allegedly claim are in fact false. If you invade a region, you may eject a few nations, however, no matter who they are, if they were in the region before you invaded, they are considered native compared to you, and they must not be left on the ban list. In addition, the password must be given to all natives, whether or not they are puppet nations of someone else. If they were in the region when you invaded, they must be sent the password. En masse. Please correct this situation, lest the moderators have to delete you for griefing.

To further clarify the rules on banning, here's a short synopsis:
FOUNDER: May ban anyone or everyone for any reason. Is *OWNER* of the region.
DELEGATE ("native"): May ban invasion armies, as well as a substantial number of natives.
DELEGATE ("invader"): May expel a small number of natives for tactical reasons, but may never ban them. Natives should always be allowed re-entry whenever they wish, when they wish. This means they may not be left in the ban-list, and must be informed about any password without having to ask for it. Keep in mind: the region belongs ot the natives, NOT to the invaders, regardless of what the invaders may claim in the process of running their flag up the pole.

Regarding the password:
We will re-instate it if it proves to be a security risk, at which point we'd generally expect the mods to understand the need for it.

It is my understanding of the rules that it is illegal for an invader to use a password to prevent natives from getting control of their region back. If you want to maintain control, you'll have to outnumber whatever support they gather. I'm interested in getting this verified though.

As for North America: both the Founder and the Delegate decided your presence was no longer desired in that region, and they hance removed you. That is entirely legal. If you and whatever supporters you have in North America find this unacceptable, you are entitled to start a new region amongst yourselves.

Ballotonia

DELEGATE ("invader"): May expel a small number of natives for tactical reasons, but may never ban them. Natives should always be allowed re-entry whenever they wish, when they wish. This means they may not be left in the ban-list, and must be informed about any password without having to ask for it. Keep in mind: the region belongs ot the natives, NOT to the invaders, regardless of what the invaders may claim in the process of running their flag up the pole.


a, but they're are loopholes in the "native" status which was never (AFAIK) properly defined (thinks of the loophole the mods encouraged Francos Spain to use.Wait, they even used it for him, without his even having to claim it :roll: i'm sure this has nothing to do with bias :roll: )

damn posted as worng country again :(

a, but they're are loopholes in the "native" status which was never (AFAIK) properly defined

All those who are in a region when invaders get there are considered Native. Outside of invasions, Native isn't defined at all.

Admittedly, this can get rather complex when multiple invasions occur.

Ballotonia

ah, so internal revolutionnaries are allowed to ban who they want?seems to the direction the mods take.In that case, Pilmour is/should be allowed to ban people from Byzantium, since he was there before becoming a delegate.

ah, so internal revolutionnaries are allowed to ban who they want?seems to the direction the mods take.In that case, Pilmour is/should be allowed to ban people from Byzantium, since he was there before becoming a delegate.

However, all of the times he was there, he was there as an invader.

ah, so internal revolutionnaries are allowed to ban who they want?seems to the direction the mods take.In that case, Pilmour is/should be allowed to ban people from Byzantium, since he was there before becoming a delegate.

However, all of the times he was there, he was there as an invader.surely, he was at most an "immigrant" :P sinc ehe wasn't involved in active takeover of the region during this time.Essentially, there comes a time if the invasion has become accepted, when it should be considered permanent.

How is a nation classed as a native in a region?

sinc ehe wasn't involved in active takeover of the region during this time.Essentially, there comes a time if the invasion has become accepted, when it should be considered permanent.

1- He was actively involved in the invasion: he endorsed Capitalizts.
2- No natives ever accepted any of the invasions / invaders I mentioned.
3- The list of events I gave span about a 3 weeks Real-Time, starting with the UN ejection of Mistra and the subsequent invasion by Capitalizts and Pilmour.

How is a nation classed as a native in a region?

As I understand it, it's not an absolute qualifier. When you're in the region when invaders enter, the invaders have to treat you as a native.

Ballotonia

sinc ehe wasn't involved in active takeover of the region during this time.Essentially, there comes a time if the invasion has become accepted, when it should be considered permanent.

1- He was actively involved in the invasion: he endorsed Capitalizts.
2- No natives ever accepted any of the invasions / invaders I mentioned.
3- The list of events I gave span about a 3 weeks Real-Time, starting with the UN ejection of Mistra and the subsequent invasion by Capitalizts and Pilmour.

ack...was under the impression it was sevral months

ack...was under the impression it was sevral months

Oh, no. That timespan would've had me include the (failed) previous invasion of Byzantium by the ACC / Capitalist Soldiers (ordered by Pilmour, as he was the ACC Supreme Commander at the time), and maybe even the ACC invasion of Byzantium prior to that one, depending on how many months you're actually talking about.

Yes, poor Byzantium has seen a lot of hardship. Surely the natives must be getting used to getting run over by now? :D

Ballotonia

We recently took charge of the region Byzantium and expelled one nation from it. We changed the regional password shortly afterwards. We were a "native" nation so to speak, as we had been there throughout the prior delegate's regime and simply inherited the delegate position, but then we were called "invaders" by other nations (due to the fact that we have membership in the ACC) and were immediately ordered by the mods to mass-telegram the password to every nation in the region (spamming in a sense) or to risk being deleted for "griefing." We threw our arms into the air, surrendering, and decided that the best option was to remove regional PW-protection completely. We will re-instate it if it proves to be a security risk, at which point we'd generally expect the mods to understand the need for it. Otherwise, what: we'd be deleted? It's ludicrous. Each time we change a password, we shouldn't have to telegram the change to 30 nations who lived there when we arrived (some of whom no longer do.)

Now, several appeals of ours to the NS moderators after one of OUR nations (Pilmour) was expelled from North America were ignored. North America keeps our nation on the ban list for no legitimate NS reason (we never spammed, never flamed, never griefed, they just didn't like us) and they banned us because of that. Simply, that is unfair. Our expulsion was unfair. North America is also PW-protected. That, too, is unfair.

The question here is, do people or do they not have the right to ban? We believe that banning (in itself) is damaging to the spirit of the game, as well as obnoxious. But we also must appeal to the Moderators to be evenhanded. Several weeks ago our mother nation (Pilmour) appealed to the mods to be permitted back into North America. Our request was not answered. Now, when a nation who doesn't even want to enter Byzantium complains that it is password-protected to the Mods, we are forced to alter our own strategy and risk losing the first delegate seat we've ever held.

We wish for the mods to make it eminently clear, for once and for all, whether or not banning is legitimate. I am sure that the Mods have had case precedent, this and that, yada yada, but quite frankly, we've used the "moderator intervention" request form time and again and at none of those times were our requests even responded to, much less honored by action.

So: Can we ban, or can we not? We want it spelled out clearly, definitively, and simply--- rather than having 45 pages of forum to scroll through to find "past precedent" in Moderator decisions. We think that a simpler game will be a game which is more fun to play.

My issues haven't ever been addressed, and it is time that they are--- quite simply, I'd like to see the mods make a decision which frees up the game a bit, whether it is a blanket "ban on banning" or completely condoning it. Either-or.

Sincerely,

Pilmour Ambassadors (& Pilmour.)

How come I don't quite believe a word of that?

----------------
-President Z.D. Meier
Alliance of Democracy
U.N. Delegate

http://images.art.com/images/PRODUCTS/small/10045000/10045608.jpg

<snip>
...We were a "native" nation so to speak, as we had been there throughout the prior delegate's regime and simply inherited the delegate position, but then we were called "invaders" by other nations....
<snip>


The fact that even you term yourself a "Native" (with quotation marks), and say "so to speak" show that you were clearly not a native.


Now, several appeals of ours to the NS moderators after one of OUR nations (Pilmour) was expelled from North America were ignored. North America keeps our nation on the ban list for no legitimate NS reason (we never spammed, never flamed, never griefed, they just didn't like us) and they banned us because of that. Simply, that is unfair. Our expulsion was unfair. North America is also PW-protected. That, too, is unfair.


What are you talking about, unfair? Our founder booted you for your frequent "jacka**ian" antics. If the founder doesn’t want you in the region, deal with it. You're gone.
AND we are allowed to password-protect our region whenever we want. That is NOT unfair. We are currently engaged in a 'party-style' RP, and we don't particularly want to deal with spammers right now. When our RP is done, the region will be open, as always. But again I remind you, it is our prerogative to pwd-prtct the region whenever we want.


The question here is, do people or do they not have the right to ban? We believe that banning (in itself) is damaging to the spirit of the game, as well as obnoxious. <snip>


You can ban. You can't move into a region (as you did) and eject a native nation because they are controlled by someone you don't like. Also, for someone who thinks banning is damaging to the spirit of the game, you seem to enjoy utilizing it...


<snip>...frankly, we've used the "moderator intervention" request form time and again and at none of those times were our requests even responded to, much less honored by action.


I have almost always seen moderators respond properly to my requests for action. Maybe if you made legitimate request, you'd see responses.



My issues haven't ever been addressed, and it is time that they are--- quite simply, I'd like to see the mods make a decision which frees up the game a bit, whether it is a blanket "ban on banning" or completely condoning it. Either-or.

You want the Mods to say either, "OK ban whoever you want" or "OK, we're taking away the banning feature"? Why? That would totaly destroy the spirit of the game (as you yourself stated above), or effectively make regional controls pointless. :roll:

Pilmour, you went in as an invader with Capitalizt. Then you became delegate after he leeft. You were still an invader. You cannot just suddenly become a native because you lived through the delegacy of an invader delegate in the region. To make it even more obvious that you were still an invader you put the region ito the hands of the Atlantic Alliance. Putting Byzantium into the hands of the organization that you have a high position in makes you an invader in my eyes. The Cold Spring pretty much spelled everything out for you.

Pilmour, you went in as an invader with Capitalizt. Then you became delegate after he leeft. You were still an invader. You cannot just suddenly become a native because you lived through the delegacy of an invader delegate in the region. To make it even more obvious that you were still an invader you put the region ito the hands of the Atlantic Alliance. Putting Byzantium into the hands of the organization that you have a high position in makes you an invader in my eyes. The Cold Spring pretty much speeled everything out for you.

Are you French? :lol:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
Corinthe, Queen of Eternity.
The getting help section! (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=help) (for all your gaming problems)http://www.nationstates.net/forum/templates/subSilver/images/whosonline.gif

WTF mde you think I was French? I live in New Jersey thank you very much. i do not have an ounce of French blood. As for the name of my nation. Onizuka is the name of an anime character. That means that Onizuka is JAPANESE! I ought to shoot you for thinking I'm French!

Pilmour, you went in as an invader with Capitalizt. Then you became delegate after he leeft. You were still an invader. You cannot just suddenly become a native because you lived through the delegacy of an invader delegate in the region. To make it even more obvious that you were still an invader you put the region ito the hands of the Atlantic Alliance. Putting Byzantium into the hands of the organization that you have a high position in makes you an invader in my eyes. The Cold Spring pretty much spelled everything out for you.

Haha, you editted your post, thus proving my point :wink: :lol:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
Corinthe, Queen of Eternity.
The getting help section! (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=help) (for all your gaming problems)http://www.nationstates.net/forum/templates/subSilver/images/whosonline.gif

All I did was make a spelling mistake. After your message I proceeded to fix it. How does that make me look French? Is there something wrong with fixing a spelling error?

----- Sorry -----
Thanks Kandarin for pointing this out.

Deleted by user.

DELEGATE ("invader"): May expel a small number of natives for tactical reasons, but may never ban them. Natives should always be allowed re-entry whenever they wish, when they wish. This means they may not be left in the ban-list, and must be informed about any password without having to ask for it. Keep in mind: the region belongs ot the natives, NOT to the invaders, regardless of what the invaders may claim in the process of running their flag up the pole.

By looking at this quote, my guess is that the rules are applied at the whim of whoever, depending on who they like or dislike. Francos Spain was an invader, took over The Pacific, ejected a lot of the natives from the region. The MODs said the so called natives were not natives. I really don't think that the MODs believe most of us anymore. My UN member country would agree with you that the rules mean nothing.

I agree with you that he was an invader, but this is not the place and time to bring this up.

You can ban, as long as it's not Natives you're banning...

But, if this nation is actually a native of the region, as they claim (and I have no idea if they lie or not), but if they are a region, the game would allow them the right to ban one nation, no?

ah, so internal revolutionnaries are allowed to ban who they want?seems to the direction the mods take.In that case, Pilmour is/should be allowed to ban people from Byzantium, since he was there before becoming a delegate.

However, all of the times he was there, he was there as an invader.

This is a rule that I think will have to be clarified some time. As I understand it, and as you corretly seem to reference, IF he was there as an invader (do you know that he entered the region as an invader?) then hypatheticlly he can never be native.

But this is stupid, as ill-thought a rule as I can imagine. Acording to that I could not be a native of Farktopia. Because, I was an invader at the time. True, this was the region I went to retire as an invader in. True, I was the most active nation there are the time, and was part of the metamorphsis to what it became, and so was given the Founder status when these were still be apporinted to worthy nations.

So, does this mean that tho I am a founder I can never be a native in my region?

Akbar, I believe the phrase "an invader can never be a native" is referring to invaded regions. In other words, if you invade and seize a region, you are not considered a 'native'.

Obviously, if you're the Founder of a region, you are a native there. Moreover, it doesn't really matter, because as Founder you can do close to anything you want anyway.

I still think is a hazy issue, but I understand it is only invaders who seem to think this, so that's fine. I accept this.

It seems to me that if you invade a region, then settle down there over the course of months, help to build the region along with other natives before you were there, it is discrimnary that you can never be considered a native of the region. I dunno what the actual breakdown should, but I do think that some sort of comittment to the region and time spent should count for something.

I believe this subject has already been dealt with. So, I think I will lock this one up!

Stephanie
Forum Mod