NationStates Jolt Archive

Anonymous parties have brought the following accusations against the Atlantic Alliance recently on this forum:
1. The Atlantic Alliance griefs.
2. The Atlantic Alliance spams.
3. The Atlantic Alliance should go to hell.
As current elected Supreme Commander of the Atlantic Alliance I would just like to clear up some of these accusations:
1. The Atlantic Alliance has not and will never under my leadership grief any region. Griefing has two definitions in the NS world. One is to eject all nations in a region. We have never done this, we at most ejected 6 nations from a much larger region. The other is to knowlingly and maliciously do something just to make someone's NS life miserable. We have never done this, all our actions have been based solely on our ambitions, none just to hinder someone elses.
2. The current Atlantic Alliance does not spam. Individual nations part of the Atlantic Alliance may have done this, but it is not sanctioned or encouraged by their superiors in the Atlantic Alliance and any victim of this should take it up with the individual nation in question, the moderators, or file a complaint with the Atlantic Alliance leadership which may result in disciplinary action to the offending nation. Trying to publicly implicate the entire alliance for the individual actions of a single nation is nothing short of libel.
3. Not my or your judgement to make.
I realize that this statement will cause a flame war. I hereby order members of the Atlantic Alliance to stay out of it entirely. I will deal with any grievances concerning the current Atlantic Alliance personally.

Speaking as the AA's #1 detractor, I can say that MrN's messages are true. In regard to rule violations, the AA seems to have cleaned up their act.

However, you are purely technical-based invaders and that class of player can be expected to be fairly unpopular.

However, you are purely technical-based invaders and that class of player can be expected to be fairly unpopular.We have (how do you say?) realized this. :wink: :twisted:

While your own definition of griefing is nice to have, on this site it is generally used to refer to a class of rule violations which goes well beyond your narrow definition of (mass-) banning natives. It also includes banning even one native, or failing to distribute the regional password to all natives, as AA/ACC member Pilmour has previously done in Byzantium. This has been elaborately pointed out, a mod intervened to remind him of the rules. So... be honest here... was any disciplinary action taken against Pilmour over this?

Also, please be aware that disciplinary action within the AA/ACC is not a valid substitute for mod rule enforcement. Your organization and its members are expected to adhere to the rules of the game, just like anyone else, and violations of said rules by AA/ACC members deserve to be punished in the same manner as with anyone else. If the AA/ACC decides to provide punishment BEYOND the regular, than that is your choice. (example: rule violators in my region Holland have been kicked out of the region as additional punishment)

Ballotonia

Speaking as the AA's #1 detractor….

I think you may be in danger of starting a row by claiming that honour.

The Atlantic should be well aware of the rules by now. Griefing consists of spamming hq's and regional activity as well as blocking native nations from their regions.

As a fellow invader who doesn't communicate with AA at all, I would say that they seem pretty clean, tho there were issues in the past. If they weren't clean now, they wouldn't exist as a group. As to the post in the past you are referring to, I think it is just an issue of players need to back things up, not just make uncollaberated remarks. This is likely why the said thread was locked.

Just out of curiousity...

Why is this in this forum? The deals with your interactions with other players, not the Moderators.

I thought they were complaining that other players were making accusations about their members' behaviour on these boards.

Just out of curiousity...

Why is this in this forum? The deals with your interactions with other players, not the Moderators.

Kinda see this as more of a NationStates post as well... I can only guess this is in hewre, because the original attacking them was either in Tech or Mod-- plus this is commenting on following the rules.

Still, gotta agree with you, perhaps not best served here...

The AA must die.

Edit: Bah @ double post.

This is here because it concerns serious accusations brought against us here. Unless you mean to tell me that the original accusations were not in any way mod-related, in which case why where they in this forum? And more specifically, why didn't anybody challenge their presence in this forum? Therefore this is a reply to accusations brought against my organization that have serious moderation-related implications.

As for the other definitions of griefing we are aware of those too. We don't, as an organization, do any of those either. What happened between Pilmour and the mods is news to me. There are 3 questions on the training test that every AA member is required to take:
25. What is greifing?

26. What is spamming?

27. Does the AA do either one?

The correct answer for number 27 is "No." In fact NOT_A_Chance, a character opposed to the AA, posted the entire training manual, including this and the section where we touch on griefing and why we don't do it. Feel free to peruse the full document to assess this doctrine's validity here. (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=87192&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20&sid=15830b38797bd354c15540f057489e1e)

Edit: Page-breaking URL coverted to tag by NS Mod

What happened between Pilmour and the mods is news to me.

It was only quite publically complained about by Pilmour himself (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=71087), in this very forum. He complained that the mods were overstepping their bounds in telling him to play by the rules. Perhaps you could read up on that and care to share your opinion on it? Does the AA/ACC agree with Pilmour in claiming the mods overstepped on that one? Do you side with the mods in their rule enforcement? Be careful in what you choose now :).

Ballotonia

I will not be goaded nor threatened by someone with no authority to enforce what he threatens. Frankly I think that the whole native definition system needs to be cleared up, as does the rest of moderator practices. There needs to be one uniformed standard to which everyone is held. I mostly support the moderator's decisions, but the growing number of complaints and hardship against them indicates that perhaps they need to rethink some of their policies. In this particular case I disagree that every native nation must be given access. I will, however, not break it. Nor did Pilmour once he was informed of it. Challenging moderator positions and breaking them are two entirely separate things.

This is here because it concerns serious accusations brought against us here. Unless you mean to tell me that the original accusations were not in any way mod-related, in which case why where they in this forum?

Hm. I seem to remember locking that thread as it was irrelevent to the Forum.

Let me distil my question a little:

Are you seeking Mod intervention, complaining about a Mod action, or asking for clarification of anything (action, rule, etc.) from the Mods?

I thought the definition of natives had been resolved, that is anyone who generally abides within a particular region, with the caveat that invaders can never become native regardless of length tenure.

I thought the definition of natives had been resolved, that is anyone who generally abides within a particular region, with the caveat that invaders can never become native regardless of length tenure.

This is mostly true. If someone were to quit invading, take te region as their own, and stay there for months and months they might be called natives. Don't count on it, tho it has been stated a s a possibility on a case by case....

The only other way for invader to be considered native is if another group atacks the region-- the 1st invader group can treat the new invaders as non-natives.

Now how does that definition of native run against the pacifics having natives?

Technically speaking, it is impossible to define who is a native in the feede regions. In my opinion, the native concept there does not exist.

As for the natves, there is one major problem... Basically anybody can claim being a native in a bigger region. Let's say Europe is invaded tomorrow and founder Schumania is bored with the game. Do you have a list of all the members to be sure as to who is founder, who was in the region before another? Hell, even being on a banlist, you can make the moderators think that you were a native ejected. This whole native story seriously bothers me, because there is too much chances to fool the system.

The current rules say: the term 'native' only applies within the context of an invasion. In that context it refers to all the nations present within the region at the start of the invasion.

No officialy published rule I've seen claims that the above should not apply to feeder regions as well.

Ballotonia

It would be easy for a group of invaders to startt enough nations to insure they were all in the feeder region of their choice-- doesn't matter though. No invader group has enough players to take a feeder.


As to overtaking FS, if that is where this is going, I believe once the invasion took place that the leader could Ban FS on the basis of politcal competition, but I am not sure. This issue has flip-flopped only slightly. Intially it was stated you could kick out a few natives and keep them out, if done for poltical battle not for griefing. But, last I saw it was declared all natives had to be allowed back in the region. So, the current stance, not really positive. I tend to side with the last option, that all natives much be allowed back.

I do believe that feeder regions are an exception, and players can be banned indefinetly. Hopefully a mod will go ahead and say which is the case for feeder...