NationStates Jolt Archive

Mods/Admin-

I'm writing this to find out the reason(s) for the deletion of my main nation, RedSoviet. I signed on last night at 8PM EST for the first time since 12PM Friday, EST, to find that RedSoviet no longer existed; obviously, it was not inactivity.
If it had something to do with BMV's joke war RP against random NS nations in the forum, then why is BMV still around? That whole thread was a joke, for I submitted my "RedSoviet Music Battalion" filled with tubas, trombones, and piccolos to fight along with other forces.
Part of me also thinks that I was hacked, and that person was flaming in the forums as RedSoviet. I have been hacked twice before as RedSoviet. I have only once been warned by the mods to stop TMing a a certain nation who asked me not to, so I stopped. That was months ago, and since then, I've done nothing to merit a warning by the mods for anything either in the forum or in the game...NOTHING!!!
I have the utmost repsect for the mods and their decisions, but in this case, I am unsure for the reason for my deletion. Why was I not warned? Please help me understand what happened. Thank you.

-Alfie

P.S. Please do not delete this nation of mine. It is my oldest surviving nation, and it would tear me apart if I was deleted.

NOTE: IF YOU ARE NOT A MOD, DO NOT POST HERE, UNLESS YOU KNOW WHY I WAS DELETED!!!

I was astonished to find you deleted myself, 21 hours after it happened. Unless you committed any rule violations yourself, the other obvious possibility is that you left yourself logged in at school, and an unscrupulous individual provoked a suicide by Mod. "Hacking" is not really a realistic scenario. Someone might have guessed your password, or exploited autologin. Have you received any warnings for anything in the past?

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

I didn't know what had happened either.. RS was in my region to! However, I have since learned that RS was apparently involved in some sort of attempt to take over a forum or some thing like that.. I think it was to do with last weeks post about taking over the NS forum.. I heard the word spamming in there as well. I wasn't around for it, so I don't know all the details.. this is just what I've been able to find out as I promised RS I would do. So, it looks like the DEAT is going to stand. I'm really sorry.. as I think RS is a nice guy and always polite.. I wasn't here at the time.. and so I can't really say any thing more then my own opinion and that is I've never had a problem with RS.. but I guess maybe he just got involved in some thing perhaps without thinking.. *shrug*

Stephanie
Game Moderator

Does anyone have the URLs of any of the threads in question? I seem to remember some stuff being moved into the General Forum. I can't really do anything about it, but out of curiousity, I would like to see why it might have been him who got toasted and not others. It might help RS to understand too. So if you have the URLs of the right threads, I am assuming RS would not object to them being posted.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

He should be resurrected

I've got :

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=100649&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

and

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=100643&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Scolo said he will deal with this later when he has the time. So please, if you're not a GM please don't speculate on what you don't know. Let's just leave this and let Scolo respond to it when he get's the chance. To many chefs in this soup at the moment.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

Ah. To avoid people jumping on the band-wagon, should I lock this in the meantime?

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

Ah. To avoid people jumping on the band-wagon, should I lock this in the meantime?

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator
My 2 cents: if its locked, its liable to be forgotten, but TYS did ask for non-mods not to post here, so people should respect that.

I realise my opinion carries no weight, but TG did ask.

*smiles nervously*

OK, I will leave this unlocked, but I ask non-Moderators not to post at this time, particularly if they took part in the Forum invasion. You could end up making things worse. As Steph suggests, this matter should be cleared up later.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

Hokay:

1) Neut warned RedSoviet previously for telegram spam.

2) I warned RedSoviet due to the whole "General invasion of the NS Forum" thing, classfied as announced malicious intent to spam.

3) Second warning results in deletion, as per the Rules of Engagement.

4) RedSoviet deleted.

No resurrection will be forthcoming (from me at least) at this time or any future time.

--Scolo

Hmm, explains why you needed your flag redone,

I never received a warning about the forum invasion thing...when did you send it? I was last on Friday at noon, EST, and did not go back on until 8PM Sunday EST. Please help me out here.

Hokay:

1) Neut warned RedSoviet previously for telegram spam.

I understand that.



2) I warned RedSoviet due to the whole "General invasion of the NS Forum" thing, classfied as announced malicious intent to spam.

3) Second warning results in deletion, as per the Rules of Engagement.

Like I said, I never received a warning. Plus, "Malicious Intent to spam? First, I did not see that announced anywhere...also, I had taken the whole thing as a joke...I submitted my tubas, trombones, and piccolos to fight in it, for God's sake!!

4) RedSoviet deleted.

--Scolo

Not a just action in my opinion. But of course, my opinion is not the one that matters, in this case.

You dont get a warning on the second offense - you get DEATed. Thus you did not receive a warning.

"Intent to spam" is far from actually spamming. If he hadn't spammed yet, then he hadn't committed an offense. You've gone way out of bounds with this whole "intent to spam" charge, and RedSoviet's summary deletion was far more offensive than anything that went on in the "invasion" threads.

I've already asked [violet] to review the handling of the "invasion" threads. We'll see who was truly in the wrong here.

:evil:

Having glanced over the times of the posts in those threads, I believe that the "intent to spam" warning was issued after the spamming in question had taken place.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

"Intent to spam" is far from actually spamming. If he hadn't spammed yet, then he hadn't committed an offense. You've gone way out of bounds with this whole "intent to spam" charge, and RedSoviet's summary deletion was far more offensive than anything that went on in the "invasion" threads.

I take it you've never heard of "Attempted Murder".

I've already asked [violet] to review the handling of the "invasion" threads. We'll see who was truly in the wrong here.


You do that.

I take it you've never heard of "Attempted Murder".

So now spamming is on the same level as murder? Give me a break, please. :roll:

And incidentally, no US state has the death penalty for attempted murder, only actual murder.

:evil:

"Intent to spam" is far from actually spamming. If he hadn't spammed yet, then he hadn't committed an offense. You've gone way out of bounds with this whole "intent to spam" charge, and RedSoviet's summary deletion was far more offensive than anything that went on in the "invasion" threads.

I take it you've never heard of "Attempted Murder".

You are seriously comparing attempt to murder with attempt to spam?

It looks like he was just proving that attempt to commit an offense (or conspiracy to commit thereof) is a prosecutable offense in and of itself. Ergo, why should intent to spam not be an offense, when spamming is?

"Intent to spam" is far from actually spamming. If he hadn't spammed yet, then he hadn't committed an offense. You've gone way out of bounds with this whole "intent to spam" charge, and RedSoviet's summary deletion was far more offensive than anything that went on in the "invasion" threads.

I take it you've never heard of "Attempted Murder".


:D hahhaahaha wait wait... so wait... seriously, what can I (and the rest of the NS community) do to avoid "attempted spamming" ?

It looks like he was just proving that attempt to commit an offense (or conspiracy to commit thereof) is a prosecutable offense in and of itself. Ergo, why should intent to spam not be an offense, when spamming is?

Because no spamming took place, and no spamming was going to take place under any reasonable definition of "spam". If what was posted was "spam", then most of the NS forum is "spam".

Enough of this. The moderators are in the wrong on this one, and rather than attempt to defend the indefensible, they should, for once, admit that they are wrong and correct themselves. Some of us would have a lot more respect for them if they showed a little less arrogance.

:evil:

Somehow I knew you'd take things too far.

If he hadn't spammed yet, then he hadn't committed an offense.

I mentioned attempted murder to show that intent can be illegal. Furthermore, I never said that spam was akin to murder.

And incidentally, no US state has the death penalty for attempted murder, only actual murder.

True. However, no state kills you after you commit your second crime, either. What's your point?

Ergo, why should intent to spam not be an offense, when spamming is?
:D ladies and gentlemen... the next John Ashcroft!! but seriouly... do you really have to 'conspire' to spam... I mean, it's not like robbing a bank... that's more like pulling some one over for attempting to run a red-light

Uhm... I'm sorry, but

"*peeks over wall*"

and

"*eats a donut*"

are not business as usual for the NS forum. If you think that's what goes on in NationStates, then I quite simply do not understand you. A page full of posts about people eating donuts might be acceptable in General, but not in NS. Admit it, you made a mistake, and you got burned. Get on with your life.

What's your point?

That you used a silly and misleading analogy. And that "intent to spam" is far too debatable a charge to cause someone's deletion.

:evil:

And incidentally, no US state has the death penalty for attempted murder, only actual murder.

True. However, no state kills you after you commit your second crime, either. What's your point?
:idea: Texas does... take a look http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/deathrow.htm

Uhm... I'm sorry, but

"*peeks over wall*"

and

"*eats a donut*"

are not business as usual for the NS forum.
:idea: oh my god... that's what he was deleated for... wow... just wow...

Alright, enough already.

Everyone can just sit tight and leave this to the people who are actually involved in this.

In other words, Scolopendra and TheYankeesSuck.

A few things. First off, thank you those who are supporting me. Also, I never received a warning, nor saw any warning posted by ANY MOD before the spamming took place. Yes, I admit it could be interpreted as spam, but if that is the case, why was I deleted if the topic's purpose is disputed? An example of an injustice: This thread was started by BMV, and I know he had been warned by mods a month or so ago for something, and he was DEATed. I don't think BMV should be DEATed either, because neither one of us was warned by a mod prior to the posts we made to not post what we did. I'll say it again:IF A MOD HAD WARNED ME AHEAD OF TIME NOT TO POST IN THAT THREAD BECAUSE OF THE CONSEQUENCES, I WOULD NOT HAVE POSTED!!!

Alright, enough already.

Everyone can just sit tight and leave this to the people who are actually involved in this.

In other words, Scolopendra and TheYankeesSuck.

After reading your post, Pet, I changed my statement to COULD BE INTERPRETED AS SPAM...you are right about that. When I started posting in the RP, I didn't think anything bad would come out of it, or I could get in trouble for any of it.

I posted this in Pet's thread about the invasion, and I wanted to put it here as well.

Continuing with this foolhardy exercise will be considered malicious spam. All of you who have signed up... good job, you've just signed up for "malicious intent to spam" warnings.

We will not stand for this.

The problem here, that's been said already, is that the warning was given AFTER the spamming took place. I signed off at noon EST on Friday, and Scolo's warning was issued 8 hours later...so how am I subject to that warning? Ex post facto law: If the "government" declares a certain action illegal, anybody who committed that action before the law took effect will not be prosecuted.

If I had continued to spam after the warning had been issued, then Scolo's action would've been just. However, why should I be deleted when I participated in the "invasion" before ANY mod issued a warning??

Having glanced over the times of the posts in those threads, I believe that the "intent to spam" warning was issued after the spamming in question had taken place.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

Thank you!!

Also, have none of you ever heard the Rolling Stones?

No, you can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you just might find
You get what you need

Is there anyone else on here who agrees with me?

After reading your post, Pet, I changed my statement to COULD BE INTERPRETED AS SPAM...you are right about that. When I started posting in the RP, I didn't think anything bad would come out of it, or I could get in trouble for any of it.

I posted this in Pet's thread about the invasion, and I wanted to put it here as well.

Continuing with this foolhardy exercise will be considered malicious spam. All of you who have signed up... good job, you've just signed up for "malicious intent to spam" warnings.

We will not stand for this.

The problem here, that's been said already, is that the warning was given AFTER the spamming took place. I signed off at noon EST on Friday, and Scolo's warning was issued 8 hours later...so how am I subject to that warning? Ex post facto law: If the "government" declares a certain action illegal, anybody who committed that action before the law took effect will not be prosecuted.

If I had continued to spam after the warning had been issued, then Scolo's action would've been just. However, why should I be deleted when I participated in the "invasion" before ANY mod issued a warning??However, a warning doesn't consitute the beginning of a law. The rules against "malicious intent to spam" were already in place before the incident, nullifying your ex post facto arguement.
Scolo didn't just make up this rule (it was already in place), he simply warned you that you were in violation of existing rules. And, if one is in violation of existing rules, then there is sufficient grounds for punishment.

Also note that the warnings are really just courtesies. It appears you had been warned once before as well, and the second incident fell under the "two strikes" policy. Really, the second warning would serve no purpose anyways, as you would be deleted under the "two strike" policy re-guardless.

[

However, a warning doesn't consitute the beginning of a law. The rules against "malicious intent to spam" were already in place before the incident, nullifying your ex post facto arguement.
Scolo didn't just make up this rule (it was already in place), he simply warned you that you were in violation of existing rules. And, if one is in violation of existing rules, then there is sufficient grounds for punishment.



I disagree.. there IS no rule 'INTENT to spam'... JUST 'spam. Please can you direct me to the place that shows this is a rule if I'm incorrect.

Also, please see this thread

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=102058&start=0


If we are in danger of receiving a warning for intent.. then where is the line drawn? Could we be warned for intent to spam just by logging on? At what point does the intent to do something, actually make a crime (as in against the site rules?)
In law, you can THINK 'I'm going to kill someone'... you can even say it without much threat... you may get watched more intently if you DO say it, but until you pick up a weapon, you don't get done for it!

In law, you can THINK 'I'm going to kill someone'... you can even say it without much threat... you may get watched more intently if you DO say it, but until you pick up a weapon, you don't get done for it!

Since we're randomly bringing RL law into this, I'd like to point out that many states would considering saying "I'm going to kill you" to be a threat, and thus a form of assault.

That's true, Hack. Still, the point of this thread was: Why was I deleted for "Intent to spam" when that rule didn't even exist...I know I'm beating a dead horse, but would you delete a nation that "conspired to multi," but in fact did not? If there's no law saying "intent to spam," is against the rules, then why was I deleted?