NationStates Jolt Archive

Please define who's a native, is it true that natives can't be banned, only kicked. And don't delegates who password protect a region have to give the password when natives ask for it?

As a player who visits this forum frequently, it is my experience that a native may not be banned. Furthermore, passwords need to be given, when imposed during an invasion, to all natives, even if they do not ask for them.

As for the definition of a native, you'll have to wait for a moderator, as this has been in question recently.

Yeah, just as a player, I think you will find that a lot of this is common sense (tho some try to play coy with it).

If this is in terms of an invasion, anyone there before invaders is a native. This mostly goes for counter-invasions as well, with a twist. Counter-invaders are able to kick out invaders, but can not kick and ban anyone who was not an invader and was in the region before them.

But yeah, the mods will have an offical response for you. If this si about something that already happened, you might consider even giving a few mre bits of info, just to help them help you.

Yeah, just as a player, I think you will find that a lot of this is common sense (tho some try to play coy with it).

If this is in terms of an invasion, anyone there before invaders is a native. This mostly goes for counter-invasions as well, with a twist. Counter-invaders are able to kick out invaders, but can not kick and ban anyone who was not an invader and was in the region before them.

But yeah, the mods will have an offical response for you. If this si about something that already happened, you might consider even giving a few mre bits of info, just to help them help you.

I have seen, in the past, mods say that a native is anyone in a region before it was invaded. Not sure if thats still the rules, though.

This post is made by Cspalla, a mere player with no afflation with the moderators whatsoever. It is merely a statement of observations made by Cspalla and is not guaranteed to be fact.

I honestly dont understand how hard it is to figure out just from the terms "native." "neutral," and "invader" who is what. The only reason I can think of for a person to really question the definitions is in an attempt to find a way to skirt the rules regarding natives and invasions.


Natives are just that: the region's natives. Invaders are, you guessed it, anyone belonging to the invading group (and yes, that includes the counter-invaders as well, they're not native, and they're not neutral - which leaves only one category). And neutrals are, well, they're the ones belonging to neither group (Mods, Modlings, players on neither side but attempting to gain intel for the Mods).

Well I mainly was asking can a native be banned, and does the delegate have to give a native a password?(Not I'm not invading anyone it's cause FS kicked out one of my nations.)

Aah... FS... there are no natives in the Pacific(s). Sorry dude... move to the Free Pacific Army if you wanna do something about him.

edit: just looked at your location... sure this is about FS?

Technically, there are natives in The Pacific. There are 6000+ nations that could rise up against Francos - who could only keep any 200 banned at one time.

The Pacific cannot be passworded. However, in a region that can be passworded, yes, the password must be given to all the natives immediately following a change by the invaders. Natives are generally not allowed to be perma-banned. However, when a Native becomes overly unruly - i.e. spamming/griefing/etc. - the invader delegate is allowed to leave said nation on the ban list a little more permanently (1-2 days approx.)

...<snipped out the other stuff>..... And neutrals are, well, they're the ones belonging to neither group (Mods, Modlings, players on neither side but attempting to gain intel for the Mods).

Or intel for themselves. :wink:

intell for invasions? ;)

crazy girl (suddenly logged in another nation..)

Technically, there are natives in The Pacific. There are 6000+ nations that could rise up against Francos - who could only keep any 200 banned at one time.

The Pacific cannot be passworded. However, in a region that can be passworded, yes, the password must be given to all the natives immediately following a change by the invaders. Natives are generally not allowed to be perma-banned. However, when a Native becomes overly unruly - i.e. spamming/griefing/etc. - the invader delegate is allowed to leave said nation on the ban list a little more permanently (1-2 days approx.)6000 nations, 200 can be banned, he actually can't eject enough natives to have greifed, can he?

Numbers on this (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=106030&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0)

Technically, there are natives in The Pacific. There are 6000+ nations that could rise up against Francos - who could only keep any 200 banned at one time.

The Pacific cannot be passworded. However, in a region that can be passworded, yes, the password must be given to all the natives immediately following a change by the invaders. Natives are generally not allowed to be perma-banned. However, when a Native becomes overly unruly - i.e. spamming/griefing/etc. - the invader delegate is allowed to leave said nation on the ban list a little more permanently (1-2 days approx.)

Just some personal curiosity here. Would those Native nations that are banned for the 1-2 days, still be considered natives if they come back, or would they not be considered natives, having been out of the region?

So...in other words...can they be banned for 1-2 days and then allowed to return and immediately perma-banned?

Do you really need my response?

Hey motherboard, do you remember the times when you were working with me in the "NationStates Invasion Project"? Hehehe, nostalgia.

One of the problems I see with a lot of the above is that invaders tend to confuse their status as invaders on purpose, in order to gain an advantage as 'natives'. While nativity may be easy for players to know about themselves, and presumably easy to know for mods as well (at least they can do an IP check which might reveal who belongs in which camp), it can be a real problem to figure out whether or not another player is native or not. Especially when they're not only confusing the issue but also willing to lie about it, including to mods if they think they can get away with it.

While I understand the need for vagueness in the rules, it's not making the game any easier, and I think it's not appropriate to regard anyone having a problem with the current ruleset on nativity as having bad intentions (like looking for loopholes or methods for subversion of the rules).

Ballotonia

So, Ball, you're arguing that a delegate wouldnt necessarily know who his/her fellow regional members are - as far as the regulars go? Sounds about right...perhaps for a large region anyway.

Push all you want, you've gotten about all we can give. Unless...unless you'd really like us to hard codify the rules and not allow any grey area whatsoever, even if a player does manage to exploit a loophole and thus grief any region he so desires. Be reasonable...and if you wont at least do that, then at least quit attempting to push your little agenda.


Spoffin...Francos would have to eject a large number of DIFFERENT nations, not just the same ones over and over. Also...I think you're missing my point. If there's a limit of 200 banned nations, and there are 6000 nations that dont like Francos, why has there not been a successful uprising (short of one relying on a game spasm)? He can only keep 200 out. That leaves (by my own calculations) approximately 5700+ nations that he cant keep out. That's a far greater number than he'd ever be able to raise to support him. That's what I've been trying to point out since Francos took over. It's obviously not as big a deal to the majority of the Pacificans if not even a minor number has overthrown him.

So, Ball, you're arguing that a delegate wouldnt necessarily know who his/her fellow regional members are - as far as the regulars go? Sounds about right...perhaps for a large region anyway.

While this isn't even remotely the argument I made (just read what I wrote), I'll agree with your statement.

Push all you want, you've gotten about all we can give. Unless...unless you'd really like us to hard codify the rules and not allow any grey area whatsoever, even if a player does manage to exploit a loophole and thus grief any region he so desires. Be reasonable...and if you wont at least do that, then at least quit attempting to push your little agenda.

Care to argue the issue without insults? I don't have a 'little agenda'.

For months it has been clear to me how to handle the question of nativity. The rules as you created them yourself earlier made it fairly straightforward for a player to handle a game situation in which nativity was in question. Sadly, these rules were changed by you to make nativity an IMHO rather useless concept. Invaders can now declare themselves to be natives merely by having the intent to stay. Natives can become invaders in their own region by receiving outside help to get back/maintain the delegacy against invaders. One can break a rule before it was even written.

If there's any agenda in my posts, it is that I would like to get back to simply playing the game. It doesn't even have to be under the previous ruleset, just rules that are clearly enough to be able to actually do anything at all without risking an instant DEAT from above for breaking a rule it was humanly impossible to know about or impossible to know it applied in that case.

Ballotonia

I added intent because there are sometimes nations caught in the middle of an invasion that are innocent. As intent is extremely hard to prove, in reality, it doesnt do diddly-squat except for those truly intending to inhabit a region and who were caught up in an untimely move.

I added intent because there are sometimes nations caught in the middle of an invasion that are innocent. As intent is extremely hard to prove, in reality, it doesnt do diddly-squat except for those truly intending to inhabit a region and who were caught up in an untimely move.

not to nag or something, but...

if a defender or invader delegate (not-native) would kick such a person out (because it is hard to figure out what someone's intentions are), would he or she get into trouble?

I doubt it, provided they are removed from the banlist.

I doubt it, provided they are removed from the banlist.

but what if not? and do you need to give them the password?

So, Ball, you're arguing that a delegate wouldnt necessarily know who his/her fellow regional members are - as far as the regulars go? Sounds about right...perhaps for a large region anyway.Most regions which are likely to suffer invasion should have at least a marginly competent Minister of Defence to keep track of that kind of thing, but thats beside the point


Spoffin...Francos would have to eject a large number of DIFFERENT nations, not just the same ones over and over. Also...I think you're missing my point. If there's a limit of 200 banned nations, and there are 6000 nations that dont like Francos, why has there not been a successful uprising (short of one relying on a game spasm)? He can only keep 200 out. That leaves (by my own calculations) approximately 5700+ nations that he cant keep out. That's a far greater number than he'd ever be able to raise to support him. That's what I've been trying to point out since Francos took over. It's obviously not as big a deal to the majority of the Pacificans if not even a minor number has overthrown him.
Okay, but 5700 aren't all in the UN (which you need to be to help overthrow him) and generally, the way you try to overthrow is by having a bunch of people endorse one leader. So, to quell this uprising, Francos doesn't need to eject 150 odd people, he needs to eject one (the leader).

Also, to get the close to 200 endorsements you need to depose him takes a lot of time. I think, after that "UN HQ fire", it was done in about 6-10 hours? Say Francos ejects 300 people who support his opponent, there are a hundred off the ban list who can now come back, only they can't come back. They're not online anymore. You don't stay logged in for 6-10 hours unless you're an absolute NS junkie.

To actually depose him sucessfully, you'd need a number of people equal to the number who endorse him + 200 who were on constantly, who kept moving back in as he booted out each person. And, they'd all have to endorse everyone, because Francos could do exactly what I suggested earlier (eject the leader), who then wouldn't be able to come back in til 200 more people have been banned since then.



I don't know whether people want to get rid of Franco or not, but you can't say whether the majority do or not because it is impossible to do. The kind of effort you need, the logistics... its beyond belief.

Seriously, Nuet, or anyone else who knows how to defeat Francos, I'd love to hear a suggestion. But, Corinthe was one of the experts on region invading, and she had a system crash and she still couldn't manage to do it.

Probably not. Depends on circumstances.


You want simple, codified rules? Here's the one rule we have:

PLAY NICE.


Simple, codified enough for you?

Probably not. Depends on circumstances.


You want simple, codified rules? Here's the one rule we have:

PLAY NICE.


Simple, codified enough for you?I like that one. I think it works.

Too bad people will complain that "invasions aren't nice and are therefore essentially outlawed" and others will complain that it's "too open to interpretation by the Mods. How can we know if we're playing nice or not?"


Damn...I think I just came up with an issue to write for the game...


:roll:

Too bad people will complain that "invasions aren't nice and are therefore essentially outlawed" and others will complain that it's "too open to interpretation by the Mods. How can we know if we're playing nice or not?"I think its where it crosses the line form being sorta embarassing to being downright unpleasent. I think that most people can understand the rules, but some don't or choose to misinterpret them.

Damn...I think I just came up with an issue to write for the game...Actually, could be a helluva easter egg...

well, think i got it now...
now to figure out if and how i can use this for my little list (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2466916#2466916)...

guess you're not in the mood to put it all in one nice clear post for me to link to, neut?

well, think i got it now...

Can you explain it to me then?

I can still see it coming that I boot an invader, who quickly runs to Neut to declare having had the intent to stay in the region, and have Neut DEAT me for banning a nation which was retro-actively ruled to be a native. It's far too easy for an invader to simply create a new nation for each new invasion and actually have the intent to keep each nation in its (targeted) region. It's easy for Neut to make a ruling and have that be correct (as a Senior Game Moderator he (re)writes the rules, so he's always right about any ruling anyway), but it blows for a mere mortal player if this means that every move you make is essentially a coinflip on whether or not it is later declared an illegal move.

Ballotonia

well, as far as i can see it, an invader is an invader, so if he moves in, we can kick him..
still kinda foggy though,indeed, maybe neut can explain this, i'm not too keen on being deleted for kicking invaders, who claim they wanted to leave the puppet in the region after the invasion.


edit: looked again, neut did say innocent nations (and invaders can't be called innocent), also:

added intent because there are sometimes nations caught in the middle of an invasion that are innocent. As intent is extremely hard to prove, in reality, it doesnt do diddly-squat except for those truly intending to inhabit a region and who were caught up in an untimely move.

so i don't think this rule will really be enforced..
just my thoughts, though, would be nice to get neut's response to this.

I'm not giving any more because I'm not about to give a new loophole to the invaders.

Lets just say that a defending delegate should know whether a nation really had an intent to reside in a nation previous to it being invaded.

I'm not giving any more because I'm not about to give a new loophole to the invaders.

Lets just say that a defending delegate should know whether a nation really had an intent to reside in a nation previous to it being invaded.

wish that was true, neut, but that's not always the case..
some invaders can be really tricky.

Puppets of invaders would be in the same category as all of the puppets in The Pacific. Francos can boot all he wants because he's essentially only booting a few people.

Now if an invader tries to drop a puppet in a region, the delegate should be able to boot it as if it were the same person(the invader).Sure it may be hard to determine if it's a puppet or not, but if the first thing they do is go running to the mods crying "XXXXX kicked me out of XXXXX for no reason" then at least you have a clue. The mods can tell if it's a puppet or not.

Sadly, these rules were changed by you to make nativity an IMHO rather useless concept. Invaders can now declare themselves to be natives merely by having the intent to stay. Natives can become invaders in their own region by receiving outside help to get back/maintain the delegacy against invaders. One can break a rule before it was even written.


I think you need some perspective on this one. Can you think of one example where such a confusion has transpired? I doubt you have, I haven’t. If I have missed a case of this loophole, as you put it, let me know, I would be curious (don’t misinterpret this, I am not attacking you, but honestly curious—I think you see potential where there is none).

Also, I think you misunderstand the previous post by a mod on being able to be a native in a region. We have puppets just like many of the defenders, or neutrals in this game. Some of these puppets are natives of regions, and that should be allowed. To suggest (not that you are, though I feel that this is the suggesting—tell me if I am wring), but to suggest that all of our puppets should be exile because some of them are invaders is improper in my mind. If we use this “native” puppets to invade, then they are not truly not natives. As such, if there is a proble, it will likely show up in these forums to be sorted. But, unless I have missed it (and I have been somewhat absent this last week) IU haven’t seen such an issue arise.

I added intent because there are sometimes nations caught in the middle of an invasion that are innocent. As intent is extremely hard to prove, in reality, it doesnt do diddly-squat except for those truly intending to inhabit a region and who were caught up in an untimely move.

not to nag or something, but...

if a defender or invader delegate (not-native) would kick such a person out (because it is hard to figure out what someone's intentions are), would he or she get into trouble?

+

I doubt it, provided they are removed from the banlist.

but what if not? and do you need to give them the password?

If they can prove they are native, and petition the mods for this, wouldn’t it be best to allow them into the region?




Seriously, Nuet, or anyone else who knows how to defeat Francos, I'd love to hear a suggestion. But, Corinthe was one of the experts on region invading, and she had a system crash and she still couldn't manage to do it.

I can tell you how to defeat him, overcome player apathy. Too many mouths, and too little hands.



well, think i got it now...

Can you explain it to me then?

I can still see it coming that I boot an invader, who quickly runs to Neut to declare having had the intent to stay in the region, and have Neut DEAT me for banning a nation which was retro-actively ruled to be a native. It's far too easy for an invader to simply create a new nation for each new invasion and actually have the intent to keep each nation in its (targeted) region.
Ballotonia

A) you wouldn’t be Deated for a misunderatanding.

B) You underestimate the mods. The mods can see who the players puppets belong to. You don’t think they will keep track of none invaders, who rush to them declaring native status?

I'm not giving any more because I'm not about to give a new loophole to the invaders.

The way I see it, you already did. In fact, my objection is that you did.

Lets just say that a defending delegate should know whether a nation really had an intent to reside in a nation previous to it being invaded.

In reality: they don't.

@Ackbar: I've seen invaders pretend to be natives numerous times. Sometimes even walking into a region two weeks before the main invasion, actually stating on the Civil HQ something like "Hey, this is a nice region, I think I'll stay here for a while", and then endorsement-swap a bit until their buddies come in to give them the delegacy. That's for instance how the previous invasion of 0000 United Democratic Nations started, when Alty (from the now defunct invader region Fighters) did as I mention above. What Neut has ruled, in several steps:

1- In those cases, members of an invader region should be treated as native since they did announce the intent to stay. Without gobs of Intel it's impossible to know otherwise. Even if one DOES know, question is whether Neut knows too. If not, you could end up with one less nation. Proving ones case would require disclosing the presence of one or more spies. It becomes a severe lose-lose situation for the defence.

2- Supporting the sitting delegate using outside support in defense means that delegate risks being classified as an invader, creating the IMHO rather absurd situation that the invaders have nativity rights while the defending delegate does not.

Ballotonia

Ball, you're not only being obtuse, you're making this more difficult than it has to be.

It's quite simple, really. You just are arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.

Ball, you're not only being obtuse, you're making this more difficult than it has to be.

It's quite simple, really. You just are arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.

:shock:

Ok, may I continue playing the game as if you hadn't made the above rulings? If not, I have no idea how to alter my game play to accomodate your new rulings. Treating invaders as natives and natives as invaders makes no sense to me, and IMHO quite undermines some of the basic concepts this game has had from the start. Apparently anything can be illegal, other than simply sitting there and do nothing, which shouldn't qualify as playing the game. In that case I might as well quit, if it wasn't for some friends I made in the process of initially being able to play this game.

Ballotonia

damn this is confusing... i honestly don't know who is considered a native anymore...

i have a question about paswording regions. i searched the forum for about 1 hour now, and i coulnd't find the answer. if a native delegate, even before there is any invading action, passwords the region, does he have to telegram it to all natives? or does this rule only apply to invading delegates? it's an important issue, since passwording a region makes no sence when invaders have puppets installed in the region... it would make the whole password-thing a bit irrelevant and useless.

as far as i know, a native delegate can put a password on the region, without sending it to everyone in the region..

Apparently anything can be illegal...

Now you're catching on...

Please define who's a native, is it true that natives can't be banned, only kicked. And don't delegates who password protect a region have to give the password when natives ask for it?

OK, what I know,

a native is a resident of a region who has been there for 1 to 2 weeks without leaving the region.

Invader Deelgates must unban ejected natives, Native Delegates are encouraged to unban booted natives. they are however regulated by founders.

Invader Delegates must give the password to the region to all natives, regardless of their activity or status as in or out of the region.
Native Deelgates must give the password to any Native who asks.

thats all I can think of right now.

Probably not. Depends on circumstances.


You want simple, codified rules? Here's the one rule we have:

PLAY NICE.


Simple, codified enough for you?
too simple, but if only it could be used.

Too bad people will complain that "invasions aren't nice and are therefore essentially outlawed" and others will complain that it's "too open to interpretation by the Mods. How can we know if we're playing nice or not?"


Damn...I think I just came up with an issue to write for the game...


:roll:

write it I want to see it.

Please define who's a native, is it true that natives can't be banned, only kicked. And don't delegates who password protect a region have to give the password when natives ask for it?

OK, what I know,

a native is a resident of a region who has been there for 1 to 2 weeks without leaving the region.

Invader Deelgates must unban ejected natives, Native Delegates are encouraged to unban booted natives. they are however regulated by founders.

Invader Delegates must give the password to the region to all natives, regardless of their activity or status as in or out of the region.
Native Deelgates must give the password to any Native who asks.

thats all I can think of right now.

what i've heard it doesn't matter how long you are in the region..
i'll see if i can find it, but without the keyword search...

a native is a resident of a region who has been there for 1 to 2 weeks without leaving the region.

This is a rule I've never heard of... I highly doubt it's official, actually.

Native Deelgates must give the password to any Native who asks.

Huh? Someone please tell me that's not an official rule. This one also has 'loophole alert' written all over it, especially with the currently twisted 'definition' of who is or isn't native.

Ballotonia