NationStates Jolt Archive

A plan was hatched to liberate Oceania and it was a success. The former delegate and the majority of his minions left the region quietly this morning. The rest were ejected by my friend and ally, is now the new delegate of the region. However, we're trying to figure out how to make Oceania safe from further invasions... as the region seems to be a hotbed of activity since most of the natives are quiet and the region has no founder.

I know that moderators have given founder status to other regions who were in the same predicament. I have also debated this issue with Neutered Sputniks before, and he gave me a short list of things I could do to protect the region. Well, my inquiry is as follows… about 20% of the native population have been inactive for a long period of time. We simply cannot ask everybody to move so we can refound the region because of this lack of activity. Yet, we also cannot eject the long inactive nations without being considered griefers… even though I have been a longtime resident of Oceania.

So what can we do? Right now, I asked the current delegate to password-protect the region. He has given the password to everybody who currently resides there. I don’t like doing this, because it makes it harder for those who are interested to easily move in, and it’s a pain for those who live there to move back and forth freely. If we don’t password-protect the region though, it will continue to be an easy target for invading nations. Frankly, I’m tired of having to constantly fend off attacks, and I know a lot of the others who are active and reside in Oceania feel the same.

For the sake of the region, can an exception be made to have founder status set for Oceania?

- - -
My last inquiry concerning Oceania, for Reference: A senstive issue... (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=98371)

Hmm, I guess that you would simply have to stay as you are at the moment. However, you may be able to persuade mods that one of you two should become founder, but again this would need the support of the majority of your region (80% would certianely be enough).

The Founder feature of the game has been in existence for a few months, now. Founder status is now only granted in exceptional cirucmstances.

Your region is small enough that you should be able to ask everyone to move out, wait for the region to self-delete, and refound the region. If there are inactive nations there, then you should wait for them to be deleted for inactivity.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

I don't want to push this, but what qualifies as exceptional circumstances?

I don't want to push this, but what qualifies as exceptional circumstances?

It's really up to moderator discretion.
The only one I know of that is set in stone is if there's a griefing. Often a moderator puppet will take the Founder spot until the original nations return, then a Founder of their choice will be appointed.

I don't want to push this, but what qualifies as exceptional circumstances?

Last I checked, there was no firm set of criteria for this. It is, by and large, up to the discretion of the Mod Squad. I realize that this is frustrating, but this is the best that we can do.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

I don't want to push this, but what qualifies as exceptional circumstances?

A founder will be apointed if the region is very old. There was a time when player's region were created without founder. If the region is that old, and the original creator wants foundership for a reason, chances are big that he will get foundership.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
<----------------- Not a Moderator, just wanna help out.
CorinThe
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
Pacific freedom force (http://s2.invisionfree.com/The_Pacific/)

But in the word's of Neut, 'Only when irrefutable evidence that the nation is the original founder exists'

I don't want to push this, but what qualifies as exceptional circumstances?

A founder will be apointed if the region is very old. There was a time when player's region were created without founder. If the region is that old, and the original creator wants foundership for a reason, chances are big that he will get foundership.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
<----------------- Not a Moderator, just wanna help out.
CorinThe
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
Pacific freedom force (http://s2.invisionfree.com/The_Pacific/)

Hey Corinthe :)


Anyways, Oceania has suffered repeat invasions, the latest one including people who literally called themselves "thought police" and deliberatly attempted to confuse everyone by first saying regions were their enemies, and then telling the natives that they had been tricked and were actually allied with these regions. They ejected people who disagreed with them and said they were being sent for "Re-education" at "The ministry of love"

To clarify, yes we are aware that this is from 1984, The problem is not that they Role played as in "1984" it's that they actually ejected everyone who disagreed with them, when you read 1984 did you actually wish you lived in that situation? Because they were actually implementing that

This just keeps coming up, and always receives the same answer, the only thing that changes is the region's name. It doesn't matter how much you hated the particular group of invaders that hit your region, it doesn't matter that you really, really want the region to have a founder, and it doesn't matter that you think your region is otherwise somehow special. If you want a founder, get everyone out and refound. If you can't do this (most regions have inactive members, this is nothing new) and don't want to take the time to password protect it, you're kinda SOL. Sorry to sound harsh about this, but this is the way it is, as Cogitation said.

Isn't this info stickied somewhere? The request comes up often enough, and always receives the same answer...

Your region is small enough that you should be able to ask everyone to move out, wait for the region to self-delete, and refound the region. If there are inactive nations there, then you should wait for them to be deleted for inactivity.

Unbelievable. Again, your decisions concerning this game have become frustrating. If we wait for all of those nations in Oceania who are inactive to eventually cease to exist, perhaps another few invasion attempts will happen and the region will never be able to benefit from a peaceful existence. In the time that I have resided in the region, I have seen at least five invasion attempts, most of which were in the last few weeks. I don’t believe its fair to have the residents suffer. I’m tired of having to continuously fight to save this region from those who simply want to crash it, or occupy it and remove a certain number of nations per day.

As far as I know, from doing a little research on the history of the region during my residency, the book 1984 did not inspire Oceania. Longtime residents have occasionally joked about the coincidence, but they do not wish to role-play from the book. They do not wish to be repeatedly attacked simply because of the region’s name.

If this isn’t an exceptional circumstance, than I don’t know what it. I will not let another invasion happen, and will have the delegate keep the region password-protected until this matter can be solved.

Isn't this info stickied somewhere? The request comes up often enough, and always receives the same answer...

I have had this discussion before with another moderator. I believe Oceania needs a founder in order to protect itself. I don't believe its fair to them to have to wait for inactive nations to cease to exist before anything can be done to stop the repeated invasions. Perhaps the moderators really should have a meeting to discuss not giving founder status at all, instead of giving it to certain nations, but not to others.

I am not a fan of invasions, and have seen a lot of them in my time in Nation States. I have seen far too many in the last few weeks. Perhaps we will just password-protect the region and never allow it to grow peacefully. And if the residents wonder why their region is stagnant, I'll inform them that the moderators could care less about them as people. The mods could care less about them trying to enjoy the region and having a little fun. Instead the mods just see nations in front of a computer screen. Lifeless personalities that bicker far too much.

:evil:

I understand your complaint, it's just that it's nothing new. Every few weeks, someone asks for a founder because they think they somehow have special circumstances. You want the mods to intervene for protection? From what, invasions? Why should the mods intervene when perfectly legal gameplay is taking place? You speak as if they are some foreign element corrupting the purity of the game. Invasions are not illegal, and as much as you dislike them, they are a part of this game. Thusly, if you want to remain in an unpassworded region, you have to deal with invasions and manage the region. If you don't like it, you'd better move, because those are the rules.
Your complaint is similar to saying while playing Monopoly, "I don't like that Susie is taking my money. It's inhibiting my ability to grow my empire, and hindering my enjoyment of the game. The banker ought to step in, because otherwise he's saying that he doesn't care about me as a player and is a cruel, heartless entity." The banker would then likely remind you that Susie is also playing the game and has her rights by the rules, while Susie is likely going to try to hit you with something.

The last time a moderator and I discussed founderships, I was told that invasions can sometimes become borderline griefing.... and in many ways, this impedes a person from enjoying the game. I needed to remember that the nations were actually people, and their rights needed to be respected.

The reason I was informed of this was because I had gone into a region that was part of a large scale alliance, which I was co-founder of. The founder and delegate were both friends of mine who were no longer playing. Half of the nations in this region were inactive and puppet nations of these two characters. I ejected all of the nations I knew were puppets, and no one else who were longtime residents. After ejecting these puppets, I removed their names from the ban list. Never once did I password-protect the region so others could not come in. My plan was to begin rebuilding the region. My nation was deleted from the game and when I came to plead my case, I was given the lecture about griefing, invading and the rights of people who play this game.

Well, during the A.A. exercise, the invaders ejected a few nations who they believed might pose a threat. These were longtime residents who didn't even know what was going on. During the last invasion, several longtime residents were ejected, at least two per day, sometimes more.

And now I hear that if you're a delegate, it means you're automatically a resident, and can do a little bit of nation ejecting just as long as it fits certain guidelines. And basically, what I did a long time ago would now have probably been perfectly all right.

You can do a little bit of ejecting, yes. You sound like you did quite a bit, and though you knew something the admin didn't, it was still illegal. That's all quite irrelevant now, as you've not been horrendously griefed. Such griefing was done in Axis, for example, in which the entire place was literally destroyed overnight (as I recall) multiple times. Unless the delegate is slashing-and-burning the region through various illegal means, your case is not special.
A few ejections by a group RP-ing a totalitarian, big-brother regime is perfectly within the rules. You may not like it, but that's the game. You then either play along until you can oust the invaders or create a new region. You have your rights, and the invaders have theirs. If you're not having fun within the rules of the game, it's no one's problem but your own, and perhaps you're playing the wrong game.

Whatever... the gimps can have Oceania. I'm tired of having to fight every other week to keep that region free. :evil:

Meh, there are intra-national struggles all the time for freedom in the world which this game simulates. When one side gets tired of fighting, a surrender results, though that side may not be happy with it. Such is life.

To clarify, yes we are aware that this is from 1984, The problem is not that they Role played as in "1984" it's that they actually ejected everyone who disagreed with them, when you read 1984 did you actually wish you lived in that situation? Because they were actually implementing that

Yep, sounds like good Role-Playing to me. Or are we just pretending to Role Play?

Why the complaining, anyways? There was an invasion, minor chaos, a meltdown/coup-de-etat, a few cheaters got kicked out, and the region was valiantly rescued at the last minute. Good times.

And maybe one or two people are more familiar with a great book than they were last week, ya know?

A plan was hatched to liberate Oceania and it was a success. The former delegate and the majority of his minions left the region quietly this morning. The rest were ejected by my friend and ally, is now the new delegate of the region. However, we're trying to figure out how to make Oceania safe from further invasions... as the region seems to be a hotbed of activity since most of the natives are quiet and the region has no founder.

I know that moderators have given founder status to other regions who were in the same predicament. I have also debated this issue with Neutered Sputniks before, and he gave me a short list of things I could do to protect the region. Well, my inquiry is as follows… about 20% of the native population have been inactive for a long period of time. We simply cannot ask everybody to move so we can refound the region because of this lack of activity. Yet, we also cannot eject the long inactive nations without being considered griefers… even though I have been a longtime resident of Oceania.

So what can we do? Right now, I asked the current delegate to password-protect the region. He has given the password to everybody who currently resides there. I don’t like doing this, because it makes it harder for those who are interested to easily move in, and it’s a pain for those who live there to move back and forth freely. If we don’t password-protect the region though, it will continue to be an easy target for invading nations. Frankly, I’m tired of having to constantly fend off attacks, and I know a lot of the others who are active and reside in Oceania feel the same.

For the sake of the region, can an exception be made to have founder status set for Oceania?

- - -
My last inquiry concerning Oceania, for Reference: A senstive issue... (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=98371)

You do of course realize that unless you the Defenders leave the region before the next update after you gain it, so as to allow the natives to reinstate a Delegate of their chouce, you too become invaders, as you control with your superior endorsements a region to which you are not the natives, and if you perform Any invader like actions you also become invaders, and if any natives were supporting the SO called invaders whom you ousted then you become Griefers.

Just thought I would point this out



To clarify, yes we are aware that this is from 1984, The problem is not that they Role played as in "1984" it's that they actually ejected everyone who disagreed with them, when you read 1984 did you actually wish you lived in that situation? Because they were actually implementing that

Yep, sounds like good Role-Playing to me. Or are we just pretending to Role Play?

Why the complaining, anyways? There was an invasion, minor chaos, a meltdown/coup-de-etat, a few cheaters got kicked out, and the region was valiantly rescued at the last minute. Good times.

And maybe one or two people are more familiar with a great book than they were last week, ya know?

Umm, ALL roleplay is pretend, jsut because it seems frivolus to a Serious RPer, it may very well be legit to a person who is RPing a less serious nation. Personally I dont or rathrer very very rarely RP. without a "DM" I jsut dont feel comfortable RPing.
as for the 1984 stuff, interesting, loos like a really good RP interpretation of the Book, and the interplay between the appropriate nations.

=-=-=
Loop
My current flag
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/1_infinite_loop.jpg

You do of course realize that unless you the Defenders leave the region before the next update after you gain it, so as to allow the natives to reinstate a Delegate of their choice, you too become invaders, as you control with your superior endorsements a region to which you are not the natives, and if you perform Any invader like actions, you also become invaders, and if any natives were supporting the SO called invaders whom you ousted then you become Griefers.

That may be, but I was a longtime native of the region before I was ejected, along with several others who had been in the region for longer than a month. Does being ejected mean I’m no longer a local? I vowed to return to liberate the region, and much like Douglas MacArthur, I came back with a force of nations from a mixed alliance of natives and Oceania allies, and reclaimed the region.

I can name half a dozen regions who petitioned to have founders put in place, and most of them were not extreme circumstances. Yet in the case of Oceania, it’s left to the vultures. I guess you can’t play by the rules and discuss such things in a public setting. Oh well.

And Anbar, when I wrote my second inquiry, I was aiming the question toward a game moderator, in which, as far as I know, you’re not. I don’t need some wannabe backseat “mod” responding to each one of my posts with a pseudo-authority complex. This thread was not aimed at you. This matter really does not concern you, so I ask that you stop playing mother hen and leave this to somebody who is a real moderator.

Jumangku, I have read 1984… For those that didn’t, it goes something like:

In 1984, Winston Smith lives in London which is part of the country Oceania. The world is divided into three countries that include the entire globe: Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia. Oceania, and both of the others, is a totalitarian society led by Big Brother, which censors everyone’s behavior, even their thoughts. Winston is disgusted with his oppressed life and secretly longs to join the fabled Brotherhood, a supposed group of underground rebels intent on overthrowing the government. Winston meets Julia and they secretly fall in love and have an affair, something which is considered a crime. One day, while walking home, Winston encounters O'Brien, an inner party member, who gives Winston his address. Winston had exchanged glances with O'Brien before and had dreams about him giving him the impression that O'Brien was a member of the Brotherhood. Since Julia hated the party as much as Winston did, they went to O'Brien’s house together where they were introduced into the Brotherhood. O'Brien is actually a faithful member of the Inner-Party and this is actually a trap for Winston, a trap that O'Brien has been cleverly setting for seven years. Winston and Julia are sent to the Ministry of Love which is a sort of rehabilitation center for criminals accused of thoughtcrime. There, Winston was separated from Julia, and tortured until his beliefs coincided with those of the Party. Winston denounces everything he believed him, even his love for Julia, and was released back into the public where he wastes his days at the Chestnut Tree drinking gin.

Half of the nations who were ejected from the region were called Eastasia spies. These nations did not ask to RP elements from the book in their region. They should not have been ejected for no apparent reason, as they were locals. As I have been told in my other inquiry, upon return to Oceania, it was legal to eject invaders, but I could not eject natives. So how come the 1984 geeks could get away with ejecting natives at two per day and not be punished?

It makes no sense.

C’est la vie.

Caesar, you were ejected. It's standard procedure to eject the former delegate. Don't take it seriously. However, you vowed to return and you did return because you were unbanned. The invaders followed the rules. So quitcha whining.

I can name half a dozen regions who petitioned to have founders put in place, and most of them were not extreme circumstances. Yet in the case of Oceania, it’s left to the vultures.

The petitioned to have founders but how many of them got founders? None, because the mods don't give founder status out anymore except in "extreme circumstance", which they have used the right to not define it yet.

It is my understanding that returning exiles, even when their return takes on the character of a coup, do not constitute an invasion force as such.

Everyone, please allow a Game Moderator to give a final answer.

I can understand the issues here, I myself led a large Founderless region for a while, constantly defending it from invasion. In the end, some allies created a new one and we all moved in together. It would have been nice to have been given Founder rights to it, but not even a Mod can expect much in the way of an exception from stated policy.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

I already gave a final answer. Just because they dont like the answer does not make it any less of a valid final answer. Maybe not in this thread, but this is not special circumstances.

It is my understanding that returning exiles, even when their return takes on the character of a coup, do not constitute an invasion force as such.

My personal understanding of the rules (which I post here to get a correction or clarification in case I'm wrong) is that all nations inside a region are declared 'native' at the moment an invasion starts. While natives may not be denied (re)entry into their own region, any others from outside their region who come to help the natives do not qualify as native themselves. Specifically, if these outsiders ('Defenders') in their turn take control of a region they are considered invaders themselves, even if their intention is to help the natives.

Also, the 'exiles' and 'coup' part of your message seem to refer to a certain non-published ruling. I've never seen that kind of wording used in rulings before, and they lack clear definitions (especially 'exiles', which risks everyone being able to claim to be an exile of all regions).

Ballotonia

Caesar, you were ejected. It's standard procedure to eject the former delegate. Don't take it seriously. However, you vowed to return and you did return because you were unbanned. The invaders followed the rules. So quitcha whining.

The petitioned to have founders but how many of them got founders? None, because the mods don't give founder status out anymore except in "extreme circumstance", which they have used the right to not define it yet.

This coming from the most paranoid person in the entire Nation States game. Oh well, I shouldn't expect anything less from someone such as yourself. I believe the only reason I was unbanned from Oceania was because another member made a seperate petition to some of the game moderators outside of the public forum. If I recall, one said this case was sensitive and could be construin as borderline griefing.

To answer your second question, just to toss a bone your way, two large regions (Alcatraz and Nasicournia) have founders, because the delegates petitioned the right sources and explained their reasons.

Caesar, you were ejected. It's standard procedure to eject the former delegate. Don't take it seriously. However, you vowed to return and you did return because you were unbanned. The invaders followed the rules. So quitcha whining.

The petitioned to have founders but how many of them got founders? None, because the mods don't give founder status out anymore except in "extreme circumstance", which they have used the right to not define it yet.

This coming from the most paranoid person in the entire Nation States game. Oh well, I shouldn't expect anything less from someone such as yourself. I believe the only reason I was unbanned from Oceania was because another member made a seperate petition to some of the game moderators outside of the public forum. If I recall, one said this case was sensitive and could be construin as borderline griefing.

To answer your second question, just to toss a bone your way, two large regions (Alcatraz and Nasicournia) have founders, because the delegates petitioned the right sources and explained their reasons.

And Europe just got a founder last week.

Off-topic: Four dupe posts...wow! Forums are really rotten this evening....:x

It is my understanding that returning exiles, even when their return takes on the character of a coup, do not constitute an invasion force as such.

My personal understanding of the rules (which I post here to get a correction or clarification in case I'm wrong) is that all nations inside a region are declared 'native' at the moment an invasion starts. While natives may not be denied (re)entry into their own region, any others from outside their region who come to help the natives do not qualify as native themselves. Specifically, if these outsiders ('Defenders') in their turn take control of a region they are considered invaders themselves, even if their intention is to help the natives.

Also, the 'exiles' and 'coup' part of your message seem to refer to a certain non-published ruling. I've never seen that kind of wording used in rulings before, and they lack clear definitions (especially 'exiles', which risks everyone being able to claim to be an exile of all regions).

Ballotonia

That’s what I understand as well. Thus the anti-francos group are Invaders, though they had some nations from that region.

Caesar, you were ejected. It's standard procedure to eject the former delegate. Don't take it seriously. However, you vowed to return and you did return because you were unbanned. The invaders followed the rules. So quitcha whining.

The petitioned to have founders but how many of them got founders? None, because the mods don't give founder status out anymore except in "extreme circumstance", which they have used the right to not define it yet.

This coming from the most paranoid person in the entire Nation States game. Oh well, I shouldn't expect anything less from someone such as yourself. I believe the only reason I was unbanned from Oceania was because another member made a seperate petition to some of the game moderators outside of the public forum. If I recall, one said this case was sensitive and could be construin as borderline griefing.

To answer your second question, just to toss a bone your way, two large regions (Alcatraz and Nasicournia) have founders, because the delegates petitioned the right sources and explained their reasons.

And Europe just got a founder last week.

Off-topic: Four dupe posts...wow! Forums are really rotten this evening....:x

I was against Europe getting a founder (not that my Opinion counts mind you) for this very reason—it just encourages this bi-weekly request for foundership where no foundership is Nec. However, there is a big difference between Oceania and Europe… Europe was constantly griefed by cheaters. Oceania was simply invaded. One region needed protection from people who did not follow the rules, the other simply doesn’t like the rules.

Europe didnt qualify as a special case simply because of the cheaters and griefers. Europe is also the largest region outside of the feeder regions, and probably has as many active nations in the forums/regional boards as the feeders.

This coming from the most paranoid person in the entire Nation States game. Oh well, I shouldn't expect anything less from someone such as yourself.

You know, Caesar. I'm getting pretty tired of your flame-baiting.

On the other hand, you would do more than just amuse me if you weren't one of the most incompetent military leaders in the game. :roll:

I believe the only reason I was unbanned from Oceania was because another member made a seperate petition to some of the game moderators outside of the public forum. If I recall, one said this case was sensitive and could be construin as borderline griefing.

I would say both the invasions they've done in Oceania are legit. Including the one this morning.

To answer your second question, just to toss a bone your way, two large regions (Alcatraz and Nasicournia) have founders, because the delegates petitioned the right sources and explained their reasons.

And the mods also put in a founder in Atlantic. Six months ago the mods put a lot of people as the founder of a region. They don't do that anymore. Keep with the times, man.