NationStates Jolt Archive

Apparently a nation recieved the following telegram from a moderator:

"1 minute ago NationStates Moderators The puppets and puppetmasters, Tanzarian (Savage Lands Reloaded) and Fsend (Francos Spain), have been warned for their mass TG spamming of this region."

How can the moderators justify declaring the names of the nations behind these puppets?

I'm not going to try to say what I did with my puppet, Tanzarian, wasn't underhanded and maybe even kinda evil, but isn't underhandedness apart of politics?

So is spying and using puppet nations to infiltrate against the rules in NationStates now? I think the Moderators seriously over-stepped their boundaries. Just let players play the game.

For one thing, these nations have been revealed elsewhere in the forum....

Yes, but when you break the rules, you've just joined a whole different ballgame with very different rules.

Yes, but when you break the rules, you've just joined a whole different ballgame with very different rules.

Ok, that sounds reasonable. What rules did I break though?

mass TG spamming of this region.

mass TG spamming of this region.

Ok, well if that's breaking the rules, than I guess EVERY delegate of the feeder regions are breaking the rules by sending out endorsement telegrams, right? You don't get 500+ endorsements unless you mass telegram people with basically a copy and pasted message.

So are you setting a precedent by saying what they're doing is spamming and breaking the rules?

The main difference of what the Delegates of feeder regions do and what you did, is the fact that we endorse and give information to new regions and ask if they have any questions, we hold out the hand of friendship so that maybe the Moderators don't get flooded with New Nations Questions.

What you did was spread lies and out right deframed my name within the game. So there is a difference in what the content of the Telegrams are, and for the past day and a half I have had to settle alot of these lies.

Thank you. Not

Ok, I lied. Lying is against the rules? I think not. It's morally wrong, but it's fair game in the world of politics, LadyRebels.

The content of the telegrams really isn't the issue according to Neut, it's the fact that I sent them in mass.

this was not figured out by me but it was posted on our offsite boards


This from the FAQ section on Gameplay, in the "Eitquette" section:

What can't I post?
Any content that is:

obscene
illegal
threatening
malicious
defamatory
spam
This applies to your nation's name, motto, and other customizable fields, any messages you write, images you post, or any other content you upload or link to NationStates. If you do, your nation will be deleted. See the site's Terms & Conditions for details.

Also prohibited is the practice of "griefing." Griefing is playing with the primary aim of annoying or upsetting other people. If you do this, the game moderators may take action against you.

Another player posted something offensive!
People get offended at different things, so first make sure it falls into one of the above categories. If it does, please report it to the game moderators using the "Getting Help" page.

Because our moderators are players who have volunteered to help out of the goodness of their hearts, please deal with lesser disputes without involving them. For example, if someone spams your regional message board, your region's Founder or UN Delegate can eject them.

Clearly those comments are defamatory (i.e., calling someone a racist. I'd copy the message and send it to the mods - maybe they can investigate further and terminate some accounts...


can be found here. (http://invisionfree.com/forums/theSPacific/index.php?showtopic=1330)
now if you all don't mind it's been a very very very long couple of days between my RL and my life here so i'm going to sleep for about 15 hors.


don't bug me. :wink: bbl.

SL, I'm not a mod and can't say for sure that this is the real reason, but it's one thing to ask for endorsements, or to ask someone to unendorse your opponent. It is another to flame your opponent.

I guess this solves the question of how Francos Spain always seemed to know when his enemies would invade...

Ok, I lied. Lying is against the rules? I think not. It's morally wrong, but it's fair game in the world of politics, LadyRebels.

The content of the telegrams really isn't the issue according to Neut, it's the fact that I sent them in mass.

I am no liar

can't have it both ways lovie (http://invisionfree.com/forums/theSPacific...opic=1330&st=20)

I personally find revealing the names of the puppet masters to be setting a completely messed up precendent. Half of regional politiking is fooling other people with your puppets. Revealing the names behind these two has put a completely different spin on the entire situation, and why? Because they "spammed." Everyone spams, like Savage said.

And, if like Scolopendra told me, this is not their first infraction, why bother with this mess? Two warnings and you're deleted. Either delete them, or leave them alone, but why set a completely different angle to the whole situation?

Ok, I lied. Lying is against the rules? I think not. It's morally wrong, but it's fair game in the world of politics, LadyRebels.

The content of the telegrams really isn't the issue according to Neut, it's the fact that I sent them in mass.

I am no liar

can't have it both ways lovie (http://invisionfree.com/forums/theSPacific...opic=1330&st=20)

Bistmath, I've already admitted to lying my butt off, what's the point of that post?

I think we should let the moderator police these world, with in the boundary of law unless we want to change the law........get it???? :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :D :D :D :D

SL, I'm not a mod and can't say for sure that this is the real reason it's one thing to ask for endorsements, or to ask someone to unendorse your opponent. It is another to flame your opponent.

I guess this solves the question of how Francos Spain always seemed to know when his enemies would invade...

I did not flame her. Flaming is using derrogatory insults and things of that nature. I merely embellished the facts, like the fact that she uses the Confederate flag as her nations flag, and suggested that perhaps she was a racist.

but you know the Moderators have enough work to do, I think.

But you know calling someone Racist, that my pal, is flaming anyway you look at it, you have made past couple of days rough, so now you don't like it happening to you, well sit back for the long haul, you have several people upset at you and we don't go quitely into the Night.

If the contents of the Telegrams are deframotory or flaming against anyone, I think that they should have the right to know who it is, that way when it comes down to it, the Nations know who is sending out these type messages to someone.

to read the messages please to here,

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2549842#2549842

Ok, I lied. Lying is against the rules? I think not. It's morally wrong, but it's fair game in the world of politics, LadyRebels.

The content of the telegrams really isn't the issue according to Neut, it's the fact that I sent them in mass.

I am no liar

can't have it both ways lovie (http://invisionfree.com/forums/theSPacific...opic=1330&st=20)

Bistmath, I've already admitted to lying my butt off, what's the point of that post?

because you put good people through thigns they didn't have to go thorugh and you havne't got the balls to admit it to them and apologize. and, i defended you. you don't want to hear what i really think of you. besides i'm too tired right now to care about much of much and even though my delegate is on my msn right now ordering me to go to bed and get some needed sleep i want you to stand up and finally take the responsibility for your actions. you are still sitting there without taking one iota of responsibility for what you actually said about a good person.

oh well glad i put that essay i was sent to good use yesterday.


*awaits her warning for flame with pride.*

SL, I'm not a mod and can't say for sure that this is the real reason it's one thing to ask for endorsements, or to ask someone to unendorse your opponent. It is another to flame your opponent.

I guess this solves the question of how Francos Spain always seemed to know when his enemies would invade...

I did not flame her. Flaming is using derrogatory insults and things of that nature. I merely embellished the facts, like the fact that she uses the Confederate flag as her nations flag, and suggested that perhaps she was a racist.

Generally speaking, calling somebody a racist is a derogatory insult.

SL, I'm not a mod and can't say for sure that this is the real reason it's one thing to ask for endorsements, or to ask someone to unendorse your opponent. It is another to flame your opponent.

I guess this solves the question of how Francos Spain always seemed to know when his enemies would invade...

I did not flame her. Flaming is using derrogatory insults and things of that nature. I merely embellished the facts, like the fact that she uses the Confederate flag as her nations flag, and suggested that perhaps she was a racist.

You did not embllish anything and you did not suggest it, you flat out said it, and there are copies of those telegrams right here on these forums and several copies that the Moderators already have of them.

You flat out said I was racist, you did not suggest it.

SL, I'm not a mod and can't say for sure that this is the real reason it's one thing to ask for endorsements, or to ask someone to unendorse your opponent. It is another to flame your opponent.

I guess this solves the question of how Francos Spain always seemed to know when his enemies would invade...

I did not flame her. Flaming is using derrogatory insults and things of that nature. I merely embellished the facts, like the fact that she uses the Confederate flag as her nations flag, and suggested that perhaps she was a racist.

Generally speaking, calling somebody a racist is a derogatory insult.

Well whatever your opinion, I still think it was wrong of the Mod's to reveal the owners of puppets. It's setting a bad precedent.

-Post deleted by NationStates moderators-

well done, take responsibility good man.

oh has the tg been posted yet? it's all over our offsite.

You know maybe it will make others think before they try something like this again, did you ever stop to think of that.

Oh I better not send out things like Savage and Francos Spain did, after all look what happened to them.

-Post deleted by NationStates moderators-

*Rolls eyes*

That's not even how it goes. It's-

---Post Deleted by NationStates Moderators---

this is the tg in question

Hello. I'm telegramming you today to ask you to please unendorse LadyRebels. The South Pacific has greatly suffered under the rule of this foul mouthed racist for months. Anyone who dares speak up against her openly is automatically ejected, no one is allowed to openly run against her, there is no freedom.

If you don't really mind having your political freedom taken away from you, then don't mind this telegram. Otherwise, please consider unendorsing LadyRebels. Thank you.

can be found here. (http://invisionfree.com/forums/theSPacific/index.php?showtopic=1330)

I think perhaps you're ignoring that fact that the only thing Neut said I did wrong was spam. He said nothing of the content.

I'm going to bring this up as a subject of discussion with the other Moderators. In the meantime, I'm going to stifle any possible flamewar, here.

iLock.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

So because I didnt want to point out that you were making defammatory comments, it means it's ok?

Perhaps I was allowing you some semblance of privacy. You can kiss that goodbye now.


See, you broke the rules. When you break the rules, you give up your rights to privacy. Plain and simple. We attempted to allow you some, you choose to push the issue.



Now, reap what you have sown. Short of a flamewar, I wash my hands.

this is the tg in question

Hello. I'm telegramming you today to ask you to please unendorse LadyRebels. The South Pacific has greatly suffered under the rule of this foul mouthed racist for months. Anyone who dares speak up against her openly is automatically ejected, no one is allowed to openly run against her, there is no freedom.

If you don't really mind having your political freedom taken away from you, then don't mind this telegram. Otherwise, please consider unendorsing LadyRebels. Thank you.

can be found here. (http://invisionfree.com/forums/theSPacific/index.php?showtopic=1330)

Just for the record, that's not the telegram in question. I did NOT send this telegram, I sent a different one.

really care to post that and prove your point?

don't bother i think i found it.


From the Nation of Tanzarian.

Fellow nation of The South Pacific,

I have telegrammed you to inform you of my displeasure with our current UN delegate, LadyRebels.

As I have read the South Pacifics offsite forum, I've noticed that LadyRebels often uses some really foul language. She often makes very dirty, sexual references and posts racist jokes about minorities. I don't believe that she is a good representative for the South Pacific.

Also, I find her choice for her nations flag to be offensive and racist. I do not want a foul-mouthed racist for my UN delegate any longer, do you?

I'm asking you kindly to please consider unendorsing LadyRebels so we can have a better UN delegate. Thank you.

can be found on the sp offsite here. (http://invisionfree.com/forums/theSPacific/index.php?showtopic=1354)

umm am i allowed to post the evidence we have? mods let me know, if not i'll remove it forthwith.

really care to post that and prove your point?

Post what?

So does this mean that all those people who telegram Francos Spains and Poskreybyshevs endorsers telling them to unendorse them are breaking the rules? After all, they're using the same tactics, such as spamming all of their endorsers, as well as being defammatory in the telegrams.

So does this mean that all those people who telegram Francos Spains and Poskreybyshevs endorsers telling them to unendorse them are breaking the rules? After all, they're using the same tactics, such as spamming all of their endorsers, as well as being defammatory in the telegrams.
I hope the mods clarify the status of the telegramming of Franco's Spain's endorsers. But "they're bad too" is a pretty pathetic excuse. You lied about LadyRebels, and you lied to a great many people. Regardless of whether it was against the rules you sinned against us, The gig is up; your hand has been shown. You know what you did is wrong[1], yet you're not showing the slightest bit of repentance.
Meh, I'm getting some sleep.

[1]"Ok, I lied. Lying is against the rules? I think not. It's morally wrong, ..."

Savage Lands,

It's people who behave as you did who give politics a bad name. Lying is not fair game, it's the mark of a weasel who can't get what they want through hard work or persuasion. Politicians who lie are certainly part of the body politic, just like an anus is part of the human body. Congratulations for revealing the body part you choose to identify with.

There is a big difference between being tough, organized, fighting hard and making the most of your opponents weaknesses, and being a liar and a fraud. Fortunately, although humans have a weakness for strongmen who sometimes use deceitful tactics, most are not so foolish to fall for someone who is both a liar and a loser.

You're both, and deserve no more attention.

Best wishes,

DWC
(for the) Commonwealth of Khan Daun Penh

This is supposed to be a discussion on NS rules. Lying is not against the rules. If you wish to flame Savage, do so somewhere else.

So does this mean that all those people who telegram Francos Spains and Poskreybyshevs endorsers telling them to unendorse them are breaking the rules? After all, they're using the same tactics, such as spamming all of their endorsers, as well as being defammatory in the telegrams.
I hope the mods clarify the status of the telegramming of Franco's Spain's endorsers. But "they're bad too" is a pretty pathetic excuse. You lied about LadyRebels, and you lied to a great many people. Regardless of whether it was against the rules you sinned against us, The gig is up; your hand has been shown. You know what you did is wrong[1], yet you're not showing the slightest bit of repentance.
Meh, I'm getting some sleep.

[1]"Ok, I lied. Lying is against the rules? I think not. It's morally wrong, ..."

How is it a pathetic excuse when they're doing the same thing? They're telegramming their endorsers in order to get them to unendorse Francos Spain and Poskreybyshev.

Oh, and it's been established that I lied, there's no point in bringing it up over and over. I "sinned" against you? Very well, but lying isn't against the rules of NationStates, at least it shouldn't be.

Again if they are doing it and doing so in a deframtory manner then ya I say fry them, but if they are pointing out the truth of the matter, then I would think that would not be spam, after all there are differences in the way that people work things, such as being Delegate of a Creation Region, I would never do some of the things that I have seen happen in the Pacific Region.

But then we did welcome to our boards a person saying the FS wanted to try to work things out, to clear the air, after this, I don't think that will be possible.

I don't speak for the Whole Region but I do speak for myself, and after the lies you two engaged in.....nope.

I can't think of anything original to add, except to say that my opinion of Francos Spain hit a new low.

Somewhere between Klamath and JARROS.
PS, hope that the above ain't a flame mods. Sorry if it is(if so you can delete the post and warn me), but I find these guys to be simply disgusting

This is supposed to be a discussion on NS rules. Lying is not against the rules. If you wish to flame Savage, do so somewhere else.

Exactly. I'm not going to respond to childish name-calling, either.

wehn i post something to the pacific, i am very careful about what i post and how it comes out. usuallyi post some statistics, or ways the populace can get rid of FS if they so choose . i am very very careful to suggest that they ignore my posts if they like the current government.

recently i have left them alone as i know the spers have been doing. i have given them sufficient info to remove him if they choose. (ithought levelling the playing field was a kind thing to do) i only post my messages once a day, perhaps twice. usually in a convo already started.


i like to play within the rules. to the limit to be sure, but within.

Your right lying it not against the rules, but calling me a racist outright is against the rules you did that and it is Flaming is using derrogatory insults, making it against the rules of NS, both you and FS did so.

You did it to gain the advantage, but in the end you lost it.

this was not figured out by me but it was posted on our offsite boards


This from the FAQ section on Gameplay, in the "Eitquette" section:

What can't I post?
Any content that is:

obscene
illegal
threatening
malicious
defamatory
spam
This applies to your nation's name, motto, and other customizable fields, any messages you write, images you post, or any other content you upload or link to NationStates. If you do, your nation will be deleted. See the site's Terms & Conditions for details.

Also prohibited is the practice of "griefing." Griefing is playing with the primary aim of annoying or upsetting other people. If you do this, the game moderators may take action against you.

Another player posted something offensive!
People get offended at different things, so first make sure it falls into one of the above categories. If it does, please report it to the game moderators using the "Getting Help" page.

Because our moderators are players who have volunteered to help out of the goodness of their hearts, please deal with lesser disputes without involving them. For example, if someone spams your regional message board, your region's Founder or UN Delegate can eject them.

Clearly those comments are defamatory (i.e., calling someone a racist. I'd copy the message and send it to the mods - maybe they can investigate further and terminate some accounts...


can be found here. (http://invisionfree.com/forums/theSPacific/index.php?showtopic=1330)
now if you all don't mind it's been a very very very long couple of days between my RL and my life here so i'm going to sleep for about 15 hors.


don't bug me. :wink: bbl.

This is the rules of NS, and calling me a racist would fall under them, personally I find it offensive that you called me that, but I understand if one eles sees that one, but it was malicous, deframtory, and flaming.

Wow, some weird things going on in here. Firstly, I know nothing.

Onto the goods:




Not sure that it is the case anymore, but for a while it seemed to be an unwritten rule that it was “illegal” to post Tms on offsite boards. Not sure why, just recall that occurring.

Secondly, I am assuming the TM in question is:

this is the tg in question

Hello. I'm telegramming you today to ask you to please unendorse LadyRebels. The South Pacific has greatly suffered under the rule of this foul mouthed racist for months. Anyone who dares speak up against her openly is automatically ejected, no one is allowed to openly run against her, there is no freedom.

If you don't really mind having your political freedom taken away from you, then don't mind this telegram. Otherwise, please consider unendorsing LadyRebels. Thank you.

can be found here. (http://invisionfree.com/forums/theSPacific/index.php?showtopic=1330)

If this is the Tm, not sure you are allowed to call a non-racist a racist or not. I can’t see why lies aren’t allowed, we (my group) are lied about all the time. Just the other day I heard we were deleted after our last planetary pursuit due to cheating, and although this is an outfaced lie I see no reason for it to be illegal.

Next, wow there are some egos flying around in this thread, hard to sort it all out.

So, FS and Co did you send these in a feeder region? If not, it is obviously against the rules If this was in the SP, did you use a script? If you did not use a script, and it is a feeder, the only thing they could have on you is possible flaming—you would be legal otherwise.

As to the mods posting the names of puppets, completely unneccsiary. There has already been mod edits, they should edit out the names of the puppets. This is never allowed, and to do so seems a bit of a cruicification of unpopular characters (tho don’t tell Jesus I compared him to Francos).

Again, though, I know nothing.

I apologize for not linking my previous post more clearly with the thread at hand, and especially for hurting the Savage Lands' feelings.

To be clear: There was a violation of the rules of the game in Savage Lands' accusation that Lady Rebels is a racist, makes deregotary references against minorities, and so on. This is where questions of truth are relevent: were Lady Rebels guilty of being a racist Savage Lands would be telling the truth, and simply passing information to potentially interested parties (this sets aside the spamming issue). As there is no evidence that she is guilty Savage Lands is guilty of malicious defamation, both prohibited acts.

I can call Savage Lands an iguana without breaking the rules; it may be a lie but it doesn't qualify as obsecene, illegal, threatening, etc. His lies did break the rules, and he should be dealt with accordingly.

I hope this is satisfactorily on topic, and will end the inadequate defense mounted by Savage Lands that because lying is, on its own, not forbidden, that his behaviour fell within the rules of the game. The question here is whether his malicious and defamatory remarks were of a nature that warranted and warrant punishment by the moderators.

Best wishes,

DWC

Not sure that it is the case anymore, but for a while it seemed to be an unwritten rule that it was “illegal” to post Tms on offsite boards. Not sure why, just recall that occurring. This was not offsite. All these were sent by NS nations to NS nations.

not sure you are allowed to call a non-racist a racist or not. that's the issue at heart here.

Next, wow there are some egos flying around in this thread, hard to sort it all out. when are there not? 8)

So, FS and Co did you send these in a feeder region? Yeah, the SP. To most of LR's endorsers. No scripts. Francos has been investigated for script use in the past and found clear, also Savage told assured me it took them four hours, and he's a friend of mine. I believe him.

the only thing they could have on you is possible flaming—you would be legal otherwise. Like I said, that is what I believe to be the issue here. However, Neut has stated that it is the volume rather than the content.

As to the mods posting the names of puppets, completely unneccsiary. There has already been mod edits, they should edit out the names of the puppets. Amen, brother.

"So, FS and Co did you send these in a feeder region? If not, it is obviously against the rules If this was in the SP, did you use a script? If you did not use a script, and it is a feeder, the only thing they could have on you is possible flaming—you would be legal otherwise.

As to the mods posting the names of puppets, completely unneccsiary. There has already been mod edits, they should edit out the names of the puppets. This is never allowed, and to do so seems a bit of a cruicification of unpopular characters (tho don’t tell Jesus I compared him to Francos)."

Yeah, to back up Unfree, I didn't use a script. I don't even know what a script is really.

As far as this merely being a crucifixtion, that's exactly what it is.

I apologize for not linking my previous post more clearly with the thread at hand, and especially for hurting the Savage Lands' feelings.

To be clear: There was a violation of the rules of the game in Savage Lands' accusation that Lady Rebels is a racist, makes deregotary references against minorities, and so on. This is where questions of truth are relevent: were Lady Rebels guilty of being a racist Savage Lands would be telling the truth, and simply passing information to potentially interested parties (this sets aside the spamming issue). As there is no evidence that she is guilty Savage Lands is guilty of malicious defamation, both prohibited acts.

I can call Savage Lands an iguana without breaking the rules; it may be a lie but it doesn't qualify as obsecene, illegal, threatening, etc. His lies did break the rules, and he should be dealt with accordingly.

I hope this is satisfactorily on topic, and will end the inadequate defense mounted by Savage Lands that because lying is, on its own, not forbidden, that his behaviour fell within the rules of the game. The question here is whether his malicious and defamatory remarks were of a nature that warranted and warrant punishment by the moderators.

Best wishes,

DWC

You didn't hurt my feelings. It's just that I will only respond to intelligent posts, not childishness.

Oh and I have been "dealt with accordingly." My puppet recieved a warning for spamming. Oddly enough, no mention of flaming was made.

When did I EVER state that it was not content but volume?

I merely cut and pasted from Savage Lands Reloaded own post when he asked what he'd done wrong.

My last post makes reference to the fact that the Telegrams were indeed defammatory...

You didn't hurt my feelings. It's just that I will only respond to intelligent posts, not childishness.

Ah! The last refuge of the egotistical but inadequate: no one is of sufficient intellectual calibre to be worthy of my response...

A number of issues have been raised; you have yet to deal with mine, in that lying is germane when it leads to the violation of the game rules. Any comment?

Best wishes,

DWC

When did I EVER state that it was not content but volume?

I merely cut and pasted from Savage Lands Reloaded own post when he asked what he'd done wrong.

My last post makes reference to the fact that the Telegrams were indeed defammatory...

Ok, so you consider the telegrams to be spam, very well, I still don't think it's right to give out the names of a persons puppets.

You didn't hurt my feelings. It's just that I will only respond to intelligent posts, not childishness.

Ah! The last refuge of the egotistical but inadequate: no one is of sufficient intellectual calibre to be worthy of my response...

A number of issues have been raised; you have yet to deal with mine, in that lying is germane when it leads to the violation of the game rules. Any comment?

Best wishes,

DWC

Again, I will not respond to flame or flame-bait. Try to not throw insults into your posts and try again.

Sure:

A number of issues have been raised; you have yet to deal with mine, in that lying is germane when it leads to the violation of the game rules. Any comment?

Best wishes,

DWC

Sure:

A number of issues have been raised; you have yet to deal with mine, in that lying is germane when it leads to the violation of the game rules. Any comment?

Best wishes,

DWC

So you're saying lying is like breaking the game rules?

Malicious language is against the game rules.
Defamation is against the game rules.

Calling someone a racist, without evidence, is malicious and defamatory. In many countries it would be libelous and could result in legal procedings being brought against you.

You called LadyRebels a racist, without evidence, which is malicious and defamatory. Ergo, your lies (self-described) broke the game rules.

Comment?

Best wishes,

DWC

Savage Lands, you are probably best off by forgetting this whole endevour, and write the whole thing off as a loss, before you get yourself banned.

I always thought it was forbidden by [violet] for mods to reveal puppets most famous owners, but did you consider perhaps [violet] is the one who offered you the warning?

And your continued feeding of the flames, could most likely result in, well to quote little Plucky Duck,

"Savage Lands go down the Holeeeee".

Calling someone a racist, without evidence, is malicious and defamatory. In many countries it would be libelous and could result in legal procedings being brought against you. Savage has gone to sleep. You know, that thing sane people do at night.

His evidence was based on the fact that she had a confederacy flag, coupled with a name containing the word "rebel." Don't pretend you aren't in a debate with her over said flag yourself.

Savage Lands, you are probably best off by forgetting this whole endevour, and write the whole thing off as a loss, before you get yourself banned. No way, are you kidding? If the mods are wrong, then they're wrong, and we should argue it to doomsday. I personally have a lot of respect for the mods, and very much like one of them (you know who you are ;)), but I strongly believe the names of the puppet masters should not have been revealed.

I always thought it was forbidden by [violet] for mods to reveal puppets most famous owners, but did you consider perhaps [violet] is the one who offered you the warning? [violet] is on vacation. "NationStates Moderators" issued the warning ;)

well, maybe revealing the names of the puppetmasters will keep people from using puppets to break the rules.

Remember that the world is round, Unfree People, and we move around the sun. It's just after lunch where I am.

A strange coincidence that Savage Lands twisted and turned, spewing posts left and right, until confronted with a simple and straightforward question, and then toddled off to bed.

As to the debate concerning LadyRebels' use of a modified confederate flag - absolutely, I think it's inappropriate and, in the case of this episode, it was the nail that your friend used to hang his lies on. If he had said "unendorse LR because she uses a modified confederate flag" I wouldn't be contributing to this thread. But he didn't. He maliciously defamed her.

But isn't this off-topic, which you accused me of being earlier? Would you like to answer the question I asked Savage Lands, before he was suddenly called to bed?

If not, wait in silence until he comes back to defend himself in his ever-so-convincing way.

Best wishes,

DWC

whats wrong with the Confederate battle Flag?

Max hasn't banned it, it does not depict a swastica.
it is legal.

There are lots of things that are legal that make a lot of people upset. Don't know if you're American or not but if you are try asking your question to the closest African-American, they'd answer your question about the rebel flag much more directly than I will.

The SS symbol is also legal in NS...

Best wishes,

DWC

There are lots of things that are legal that make a lot of people upset. Don't know if you're American or not but if you are try asking your question to the closest African-American, they'd answer your question about the rebel flag much more directly than I will.

The SS symbol is also legal in NS...

Best wishes,

DWC

Dude How do you know I'm not an American of African Decent?
I personally hat the term African American, it should only be used if you were actually born in Africa.

How do you know I'm not an American of African Decent?

Because of all the African Americans I've come across, I can't imagine one asking the question you did about the confederate flag.

And, how do you know I'm a 'Dude'? :)

I don't like the term "African American" much myself, but it tends to result in fewer people complaining than some of the alternatives.

Okay, now we're definitely off-topic!

Take care,

DWC

Remember that the world is round, Unfree People, and we move around the sun. It's just after lunch where I am. Congratulations. I myself am up far later over this than is sane. The dig was at me, not you. Please don't take such a hostile tone with me, I am firmly against Savage's actions and especially those of Francos, but I do NOT agree that the puppet master's names should have been revealed and that is where my problem with this situation lies.

A strange coincidence that Savage Lands twisted and turned, spewing posts left and right, until confronted with a simple and straightforward question, and then toddled off to bed. Strange. Coincidence. Riiiight. He's answered this a dozen times, and in his initial telegram. But oh, no, he's just... avoiding you. Right.

As to the debate concerning LadyRebels' use of a modified confederate flag - absolutely, I think it's inappropriate and, in the case of this episode, it was the nail that your friend used to hang his lies on. If he had said "unendorse LR because she uses a modified confederate flag" I wouldn't be contributing to this thread. But he didn't. He maliciously defamed her. Read the telegram again. He says that "choice for her nations flag [is] offensive and racist."

But isn't this off-topic, which you accused me of being earlier? God yes, but obviously I have nothing better to do than sit here and get into a debate with you. Same could apply to you.

Would you like to answer the question I asked Savage Lands, before he was suddenly called to bed? You asked, "in that lying is germane when it leads to the violation of the game rules. Any comment?", and he did have a comment. As for my part, I do not condone his lies or approve of them or like them, but they're not against the game rules.

whats wrong with the Confederate battle Flag?

Max hasn't banned it, it does not depict a swastica.
it is legal.Well, the issue is that the flag is offensive, and should not be the flag of the delegate, according to Savage. Please note that this is not my position, merely the one Savage took and DWC seems to be taking.


Right, well, I'm going to bed myself. Repeat yourself all you like over this issue, I'm going to go participate in that funny thing we call "real life" for a while.

the only thing they could have on you is possible flaming—you would be legal otherwise. Like I said, that is what I believe to be the issue here. However, Neut has stated that it is the volume rather than the content.

I miss a lot, and again I will undercut what I know so as not to be a jerk. But I pay a lot of attention to the rules, and try to understand them. Last this issue was touched on (last couple times I am aware of actually) I believe the rule was that manual sending of a TM to massive people is allowed. I recall [Violet] posting that this sort of politicking was politics.

So, if the issue is size of TMs, then I am unsure how this fits into the other rulings I have seen. Again, I don’t read this inch by inch, so I could have missed a change, but I do recall in the past.

In terms of flaming, that would be different.

[quote="Neutered Sputniks"]When did I EVER state that it was not content but volume?

I merely cut and pasted from Savage Lands Reloaded own post when he asked what he'd done wrong.

My last post makes reference to the fact that the Telegrams were indeed defammatory...

And this is the ruling in question. So, it is an issue of content. Well, if we didn’t in the past, we now know that you can’t call a non-racist a racist. The comments are obviously considered derogatory. I think this should be considered a lesson learned, and that the parties involved should move forward.

The fact that no one has argues that she is a racists speaks volumes to me about that comment, I would assume it is untrue. I would not have engaged in this infraction, and I am not 100% where the line is really, but obviously this is not allowed.

whats wrong with the Confederate battle Flag?

Max hasn't banned it, it does not depict a swastica.
it is legal.

As well, while I do not have a confederate flag tattooed between my eyes, it clearly is not always intended as a tool for racism. That said, it often is.

While I do not agree with anyone who would state that confederate flag = racism, this would seem to be adequate to justify calling someone a racist incorrectly, rather then simply maliciously. As opposed to picking a random person and calling them racist, they called her racist (if I am reading this correctly) because of her use of the Stars and Bars. I don’t agree it is racist, but ALOTTA LOTTA people do. So, is the issue they called her racist, or the way the called her a racist. I did notice the langue seemed rather strong, and that could (again could) justify a warning. If it is simply because they called her racist, I would consider them to be incorrect, but not inflammatory.

Again, I know very little though.

The funny part is that the telegram Fsend sent out was a carbon copy of an old "Unendorse Francos" telegram that had been shipped to each of my endorsers about a month ago, but with the names changed. Well gee, the puppet master behind those wasn't warned or exposed (nor have the other dozen or so players who've done the same been), so I'm sorry I missed it was somehow illegal.

But hey, I'll be happy to take a warning if it means Poskrebyshev and I can accrue endorsements without having to worry about them being picked away anymore by telegrams from the opposition to our endorsers... That is, unless this is one of those double-standard sort of things.

Funny...how would you know those players werent warned Francos?

Funny...how would you know those players werent warned Francos?

Well Neut, I used to be one of the main nations that would telegram Francos Spains endorsers, and I NEVER recieved a warning for it.

I also sent telegrams to every endorser of his once or twice, a few months ago. Not one peep from the mods.

And your telegrams contained offensive/defammatory/malicious libel?

And your telegrams contained offensive/defammatory/malicious libel?

"NationStates Moderators
Received: 1 day ago Do not spam regions via telegram. Continued violation of the TOS will result in your deletion."

I called him "dictatorial," "despicable," "immoral," and "authoritarian," to use just a few words. I have no doubt that this telegram was reported to the mods by some of Franco's more enthusiastic supporters.

And your telegrams contained offensive/defammatory/malicious libel?

As a matter of fact, there was a player who telegrammed all of my endorsers doing exactly what's being discussed: saying I was a racist (groundlessly, in my case). I reported this, as likely did a few others, but never heard anything back. And this was not an isolated case of telespam with my endorsers getting messages containing fabricated, malicious libel.

I called him "dictatorial," "despicable," "immoral," and "authoritarian," to use just a few words. I have no doubt that this telegram was reported to the mods by some of Franco's more enthusiastic supporters.

I called him many of the same things too. I think that could possibly be considered libel...

Dictatorial or authoriatian, no... even he's admitted to that once or twice ;) but dispicable and immoral? That's libel, and just plain mean and underhanded.

Not to stab myself in the back or anything, I'm merely pointing out that the ruling here seems very one-sided. Francos used the same telegram as someone used against him, and I have talked with said player who told me he has never received a warning for that.

Of course, after all the times I've accused the mods of being one-sided in favor of Francos, I'm not sure that I shouldn't just sit down and shut up now.

yes but you did it against people who were clean my dears. i have worked very hard to keep the sp forces in the clean.

as for the tg's i did send, i prefer to use easily verfieable facts (like FS tends to toss people with more then 15 endorsemetns). the spam i did send was mostly by my puppets to my puppets who were then reported to FS. worked rather well.. :wink: and lead to a very confused salusa trying to answer my questions:

'is it still spam if i spam myself? because then the notes aren't unwanted, i obviously wanted to send one to myself.'


now saying all that i haven't fired up the txt i used to copy them out to myself.

so in future why not bug the people who deserve it?

so in future why not bug the people who deserve it?

Ahh, so only the people endorsing Francos Spain and Poskrebyshev deserve to get unendorsement spam? Got it. No, that doesn't sounded like a double standard at all. :roll:

[...]
I hope the mods clarify the status of the telegramming of Franco's Spain's endorsers. But "they're bad too" is a pretty pathetic excuse. [...]


How is it a pathetic excuse when they're doing the same thing?
What they are doing is not necessarily right either. Just because they are doing something doesn't make it right. For that matter:
Very well, but lying isn't against the rules of NationStates, at least it shouldn't be.
Just because something isn't against the rules doesn't make it all right. And just because the mods haven't handed down censure doesn't make something all right either.

The people TGing Franco's Spain's endorsers are responsible for their actions; you are responsible for yours.

whats wrong with the Confederate battle Flag?

Max hasn't banned it, it does not depict a swastica.
it is legal.Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's not wrong. My concern is that the flying a modified southern cross by the delegate of the South Pacific will support racism, whether the delegate intends to do so or not (and I don't believe Ladyrebels intends to support racism, the opposite in fact).

Calling someone a racist, without evidence, is malicious and defamatory. In many countries it would be libelous and could result in legal procedings being brought against you. Savage has gone to sleep. You know, that thing sane people do at night.

His evidence was based on the fact that she had a confederacy flag, coupled with a name containing the word "rebel." Don't pretend you aren't in a debate with her over said flag yourself.
Yup. Both DWC and I criticized the flag here (http://invisionfree.com/forums/theSPacific/index.php?showtopic=688) and here (http://invisionfree.com/forums/theSPacific/index.php?showtopic=1354). At no point did we call her a racist. Sign up to the board and see for yourself.

...
Read the telegram again. He says that "choice for her nations flag [is] offensive and racist."
...
I did:
"Also, I find her choice for her nations flag to be offensive and racist. I do not want a foul-mouthed racist for my UN delegate any longer, do you?"

so in future why not bug the people who deserve it?

Ahh, so only the people endorsing Francos Spain and Poskrebyshev deserve to get unendorsement spam? Got it. No, that doesn't sounded like a double standard at all. :roll:


Perhaps you'd care to read my message. :roll:

the suggestion was that my people weren't clean in the 'let's tg francos spain' palooza going on. no such order to start telegramming his endorsers was given to south pacific forces.

the suggestion that my people have acted dirty in any actions taken is ludicrous. the sp forces are not deeply involved in such things. now, i am another matter. i have telegrammed but those tg's i send use easily verifiable facts and statistics in them to show the flaws in his institutions.

perhaps you'd care to check your logs? who is really telegramming francos spain? Becuase i assure you it isn't the south pacific.

we are currently searching our logs of the corinthe affair to verify statements i made that night instructing the forces of the south pacific to keep thier noses clean.
pehaps you'd care to check your log of that night as well?

since my people are not the ones tging francos i suggest that you take your bruised ego and go rant and bully those who are.

i hope i will be able to write in with the proofs of those later.

Bistmath - not at home so signed in as Brno.

As I recall, any reports of defammatory or mailicious spam against Francos resulted in a warning if indeed it was found necessary.


Not to mention there is a large difference between the Francos incident and this issue. Mainly, for those who will argue they're the same issue, the diffierence is that Francos was a very hostile ruler whereas in the case of the South Pacific, this libel was an attempt to have LadyRebels removed from power unfairly. In other words: Francos was being all the things he was accused of being. LadyRebels was not.

What they are doing is not necessarily right either. Just because they are doing something doesn't make it right. [...]

Just because something isn't against the rules doesn't make it all right. And just because the mods haven't handed down censure doesn't make something all right either.

The people TGing Franco's Spain's endorsers are responsible for their actions; you are responsible for yours. No one's arguing whether it's right or wrong; it's wrong. I've tgrammed Franco's endorsers myself, OK maybe that was wrong too. However, I didn't see the mods going around posting on the Pacific Civil HQ "such and such a nation and it's master, Unfree People, have been warned for mass telegram spamming."

Yup. Both DWC and I criticized the flag here (http://invisionfree.com/forums/theSPacific/index.php?showtopic=688) and here (http://invisionfree.com/forums/theSPacific/index.php?showtopic=1354). At no point did we call her a racist. Sign up to the board and see for yourself. I have registered, in fact I've made a post on your board.

Neut: the telegram for which Francos was warned was copied directly from a telegram sent to his own endorsers by Zhdanov. I have personally spoken with him, and he said he received no warnings for that. Of course he could be lying, but I doubt it.

Wow, Neut. If he's wrong and immoral and his actions are all evil, and he doesn't apply to the same rules as the rest of us, please delete him. This should be at least the second strike against him, shouldn't it??

I never said he did anything against the rules...just that his actions were somewhat deplorable. As you'll all recall, I'm sure, I was the one that argued that Francos should not just be removed by the Mods because as deplorable as his actions might or might not be, they're still legal actions.

i'm a bit confused about your post NS.

to which possible infraction are you speaking? the telegrams or his ruling style?

I have to wonder myself..if were not allowed to spam regions....how do you acount for UN nations mailing a form letter to every delegate IN THE UN, when they want you to endorse thier crappy proposal?

Wouldnt this be considered spam?

Or, if spamming is not allowed....how do we go about recruiting for a region?

The usual tactic is to mail several nations in one of the birthing regions a letter, inviting them to join you in your region.
Is this considered spam?

Does this mean recruiting nations in not allowed?

If not..this may be a double standard.

we are currently searching our logs of the corinthe affair to verify statements i made that night instructing the forces of the south pacific to keep thier noses clean.
I started recording the regional HQ about 2:00 AM so I don't have much of much. I'll post my logs here (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=113032) after I censor out names.
---update--- now posted. PCT is Bistmath, The Cold Highlands is me. I have not been sending telegrams, but I did post quite a number of times to the regional HQ. Unfortunately the vast majority of PCT's posts are before I started recording the HQ.

Ok something here that I want to point out to one and all.

I have never sent telegrams out to any Nation in the Pacific, I have never said anything in Telegrams to any of his supporters, I tried and I even welcomed an Ambassdor of His(Francos Spains) from the NPO(New Pacific Order) to the South Pacific Off Site Forums.

I was more than willing to go to bat and open talks with Francos Spain, thinking that the past was done with.

I did make a stand against him, in the open, not behind his back, so his Telegramming those telegams like that came as a shock to say the least.

People have said to me in PM's and other places that Francos Spain is not a bad person, that he needs to be given a chance, I do that and get stabbed in the back. When I have done nothing to him.

He and Savage Lands Reloaded wanted to ruin my character. Well good shots but I will not go down without a fight.

OOC/ my name, LadyRebels.

This is to set everyone straight on that one.

When I was 17 I worked in Fire and Rescue in a small town in Texas called Devine. We got a call out to an accident, a drunk driving accident, that night I was driving the Ambulance so we were second on sceen.

In this accident was a 2 year old Angel named Lacy, she was DOS(dead on sceen), I knew this Angel and her family, I babysat her so many times, the Drunk Driver was alright, nothing wrong with him.

When told by an Officer that Lacy was dead he laughed, I saw red and I went after him, it took 5 Officers and 2 Fire Fighters to pull me off of him, after that he needed emergency care, and we had to take him.

While waiting in the room for him to be released, Ace, a dear friend said to me "You know Pink(at the time my call sign was PinkLady) with your Southern Accent, and always acting the Lady first, but after tonight and seeing the Rebel in you come out, maybe you should change you call."

Three days later at Lacy's funeral I gave a eulogy, in that I made the promise on her memory "For so long as I carry the Call sign LadyRebles I will never get behind the wheel of a car after I have been drinking."

I am now 33 years old and I still have that call/nick/user name.

So now twist my name and see what happens next.

<removed some of the post>
OOC/ my name, LadyRebels.

This is to set everyone straight on that one.

When I was 17 I worked in Fire and Rescue in a small town in Texas called Devine. We got a call out to an accident, a drunk driving accident, that night I was driving the Ambulance so we were second on sceen.

In this accident was a 2 year old Angel named Lacy, she was DOS(dead on sceen), I knew this Angel and her family, I babysat her so many times, the Drunk Driver was alright, nothing wrong with him.

When told by an Officer that Lacy was dead he laughed, I saw red and I went after him, it took 5 Officers and 2 Fire Fighters to pull me off of him, after that he needed emergency care, and we had to take him.

While waiting in the room for him to be released, Ace, a dear friend said to me "You know Pink(at the time my call sign was PinkLady) with your Southern Accent, and always acting the Lady first, but after tonight and seeing the Rebel in you come out, maybe you should change you call."

Three days later at Lacy's funeral I gave a eulogy, in that I made the promise on her memory "For so long as I carry the Call sign LadyRebles I will never get behind the wheel of a car after I have been drinking."

I am now 33 years old and I still have that call/nick/user name.

So now twist my name and see what happens next.

:cry: :cry: thats really sad :cry: :cry:

How do you know I'm not an American of African Decent?

Because of all the African Americans I've come across, I can't imagine one asking the question you did about the confederate flag.

And, how do you know I'm a 'Dude'? :)

I don't like the term "African American" much myself, but it tends to result in fewer people complaining than some of the alternatives.

Okay, now we're definitely off-topic!

Take care,

DWC
I didnt know Race was controlled by opinion, Heck I guess Im actually Japanese since I love Anime. wish it were that easy. you see for an educated person, they understand the Civil War, and do not rely on the mass media interpretation, of it, there fore I can accept the Battle Flag of the Confederate states as jsut that the flag of a nation, now if she wwere flying the emblem you oft see on a Klans mans costume, then I would say, ok, she is being a bigot. but she isnt,

(Just so you know, the Civil War wasnt about slaves only it was about where power fel in the US, the Southern states felt that the US was a Nation composed of Soverign States, whereas the Northern view is a Soverign Nation composed of States. a lot of difference there,
also, when Lincoln freed the slaves, he only Freed the southern slaves, Northern Slaves (and Yes Virginia, the Yankees owned Dark Folk Too) were not freed until the 18th (I think) ammendment was passed. and technically at the time of the Emancipation Proclamation first of it only Freed slaves liberated by Northern troops. as at the time the CSA was a country in its own right, and he had no power to set law in a foreign country.

I have stated my side of the situation and my views on the whold situation, and if you think you can degree my race based on something like that then well that is your own bigotry coming to a head.

I will Not reply to any further duscussion on the topic of Civil War history or Slavery.

=-=-=
Loop
My current flag
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/1_infinite_loop.jpg
the Stainless Banner, true Flag of the Confederate States of America, I wear it in support of Lady Rebels.

But hey, I'll be happy to take a warning if it means Poskrebyshev and I can accrue endorsements without having to worry about them being picked away anymore by telegrams from the opposition to our endorsers... That is, unless this is one of those double-standard sort of things.

I’ve yet to see Neut say that this warning was given out because of the amount of telegrams. I have seen reference to the amount, but yet to see that this is alone against the rules. Not that I can demand anything from him, but I would ask for a direct answer to the question, as I imagine it is the same as when I saw it last mentioned by [violet].

Neutered, ignoring the potential libel or slander, did the players in question merit a warning based on the amount of TM’s sent? Thx.

Francos was being all the things he was accused of being. LadyRebels was not.

Though I would not agree with it, one could (and does) make the argument that the confederate flag is a symbol of racism.

Just so you know, the Civil War wasnt about slaves only it was about where power fel in the US, the Southern states felt that the US was a Nation composed of Soverign States, whereas the Northern view is a Soverign Nation composed of States. a lot of difference there,
also, when Lincoln freed the slaves, he only Freed the southern slaves, Northern Slaves (and Yes Virginia, the Yankees owned Dark Folk Too) were not freed until the 18th (I think) ammendment was passed. and technically at the time of the Emancipation Proclamation first of it only Freed slaves liberated by Northern troops. as at the time the CSA was a country in its own right, and he had no power to set law in a foreign country.

I'm not sure about what you mean by race being controlled by opinion, so I'll leave that point. But the above is incorrect in a number of areas:

The Civil War was principally about States Rights, whether or not the federal government had the right to supercede the decisions made by individual states, or not. But slavery inflamed the debate, it had had been the dominant national issue for years, since the 'Missouri Compromise' around 1820, the question of Texas' status in joining the union, 'Bloody Kansas', the Frederick-Douglass debates, etc.

So yes, the South wanted to preserve states rights, but mainly so they could preserve what they called their 'peculiar institution' - slavery. The North also wanted an end to the practise of slave states counting each slave as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of determining representation in Congress, the so-called 'Great Compromise' reached at the Constitutional Convention after the end of the Revolution. That dispute is something anyone in Nation States should identify with - forget about the immorality of slavery for a second and imagine if puppets counted in UN votes...

Yes, the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in rebel areas; it was a political tool to encourage slave revolts. But most Northern states had already abolished the practise before the war began - the real issue was how slavery would be dealt with during the rapid Westward expansion the US was then undergoing.

It was the thirteenth amendment that made slavery illegal across the United States, passed in 1865. As to your assertion that the CSA was "it's own country", why then is the war referred to as the Civil War?

Finally, if you believe that showing allegiance to a person in an internet game is worth the dishonour of flying a flag that has been a symbol of repression and enslavement, then fill your boots. All you have done is undermine what Lady Rebels said - which is that she was not flying the Confederate Flag. You are, and you'll be assessed accordingly, by me and others.

Best wishes,

DWC

Frankly, upon reading through all of this, I must say that I believe two things.

A) SLR is without a doubt deserving of a warning.

B) SLR's crime might not have been worth a warning if this was the first incident he had done anything.

Let me explain this: Your nation has obviously been involved in things were either yourself, a supporter of you, or a nation you support, has done something wrong, and been warned. Thereby when something goes the Mods way involving you its something that gets checked out quicker. (though your target being a Pacific Delegate amplifies everything)

However, what you did unto itself was truly politicing. You were attempting to subvert the delegates control through quite well created misinformations. Although no true "lying" perse was used, it was instead a use of the power of possibility and suggestion.

The main problem lies in your means. Had you not mass t-grammed, but instead posted a private message on another forum or some other such way of spreading info, there would be no problem. As it is though, you did SPAM, even if it was politicing, and doing so very well.

So I must congratulate you on what you tried to do, as despite whatever story and evidence Lady Rebels has now shown, your little speculation looked like it could be quite detrimental to support. At the same time though, your means were less than legal, and so you got burned.

So we come to a final conclusion.

A) LadyRebels explanation non-withstanding, SLR's attack was well within bounds as it was merely suggestive speculation, with just enough possibility to be legitimately considered. Thereby it is not libel or slander, merely suggestion.
B) The means of sending out the t-grams was wrong. It should have been either posted in either a regional forum or perhaps on the HQ. That is the main problem.
C) Some nations are definitely having a restrictive zone put over their operations. These nations (Francos Spain, SLR,etc) are punished for the same actions as others do to them. Unfortunately, they already have a "record" so to speak, so it is worse for them.

Well thats what we gathered, and our final decision.

For what it's worth, the war is not called The Civil War in the south. It's either called The War Between the States, or The War of Northern Agression.

However, none of that is important, and is a discussion that belongs in General. Quit hijacking the thread.

<removed some of the post>
OOC/ my name, LadyRebels.

This is to set everyone straight on that one.

When I was 17 I worked in Fire and Rescue in a small town in Texas called Devine. We got a call out to an accident, a drunk driving accident, that night I was driving the Ambulance so we were second on sceen.

In this accident was a 2 year old Angel named Lacy, she was DOS(dead on sceen), I knew this Angel and her family, I babysat her so many times, the Drunk Driver was alright, nothing wrong with him.

When told by an Officer that Lacy was dead he laughed, I saw red and I went after him, it took 5 Officers and 2 Fire Fighters to pull me off of him, after that he needed emergency care, and we had to take him.

While waiting in the room for him to be released, Ace, a dear friend said to me "You know Pink(at the time my call sign was PinkLady) with your Southern Accent, and always acting the Lady first, but after tonight and seeing the Rebel in you come out, maybe you should change you call."

Three days later at Lacy's funeral I gave a eulogy, in that I made the promise on her memory "For so long as I carry the Call sign LadyRebles I will never get behind the wheel of a car after I have been drinking."

I am now 33 years old and I still have that call/nick/user name.

So now twist my name and see what happens next.

:cry: :cry: thats really sad :cry: :cry:

I do not mean to make anyone sad with this, and if nothing eles please just remember this and let people know that sometimes Angels also loose their lives in studip accidents caused because someone decided that they were "alright" to drive, and whatever you do, don't ever drink and drive, I told this so that people, namely the ones that started all of this, will not pick up the gaunlet that someone put out there the due to my flag and my name that I just have to be racist, I am not nor will I ever be.

As to the flag, as I stated off site and now here, Savage Lands Reloaded and Francos Spain will not bully me into changing it, I am me, and I hope that everyone will take the time to get to know me before they let some silly lies turn them from getting a chance to know me.

I know that sounds naive, but you know what? at the end of the day, it is me I have to live with, when I turn off my computer, it is me I have to deal with, and most importaly here, it is my stand that I have to live with.

You two lied about me, you make no apologizes about that, but you went alot father than just lieing about me, you also slandered me, you committed character assaination against me, and you also broke rules within the game.

You had no right to do that, just as you say that the Moderators had no right to let us know who did this to me, I say that you had not the right to attack me on such a personal level.

Game aside and rules aside, decent human nature should have stopped you from doing what you did. It did not, and you will try it again, your type always does in the end.

If it was up to me, for which I am glad that at this time I am not a Moderator of this game, I would just delete your Nations and be done with it all.

But anger gets no one anywhere, I do hope that in the discussion the Moderators hold over this, that maybe someone can bring up the fact that in the end of all this, us knowing who did this is a good thing, and maybe just maybe people will not spread such malicious lies if they know that it will get them revealed for everyone that comes to these Forums.

Just a thought or two on the matter.

really care to post that and prove your point?

don't bother i think i found it.


From the Nation of Tanzarian.

Fellow nation of The South Pacific,

I have telegrammed you to inform you of my displeasure with our current UN delegate, LadyRebels.

As I have read the South Pacifics offsite forum, I've noticed that LadyRebels often uses some really foul language. She often makes very dirty, sexual references and posts racist jokes about minorities. I don't believe that she is a good representative for the South Pacific.

Also, I find her choice for her nations flag to be offensive and racist. I do not want a foul-mouthed racist for my UN delegate any longer, do you?

I'm asking you kindly to please consider unendorsing LadyRebels so we can have a better UN delegate. Thank you.

can be found on the sp offsite here. (http://invisionfree.com/forums/theSPacific/index.php?showtopic=1354)

umm am i allowed to post the evidence we have? mods let me know, if not i'll remove it forthwith.

I put in bold right where he called me a racist, I also would like to note the fouled mouthed part of that and address it, I curse no more than any other human being does, so that is a moot point.

Mainly, for those who will argue they're the same issue, the diffierence is that Francos was a very hostile ruler whereas in the case of the South Pacific, this libel was an attempt to have LadyRebels removed from power unfairly.

Deception is fair, legal, and part of the game. You've said so yourself in the past.

Francos was being all the things he was accused of being.

The funny part is that the telegram Fsend sent out was a carbon copy of an old "Unendorse Francos" telegram that had been shipped to each of my endorsers about a month ago, but with the names changed.

Do you have evidence that Francos is a racist?

The amount of telegrams was not necessarily reason enough for a warning. However, be cautioned. An over abudance of unsolicited telegrams is spam.

Regional recruiting in the game regions (RR, Lazarus, Pacifics) is allowed - as long as the recruiting message is not spammed across the board or telegrammed multiple times to the same individual.

Delegates and/or the author lobbying for their resolution via telegram is not spam unless multiple identical telegrams are sent to the same nation.



In this instance, it was the combined defammatory remarks and the number of messages that warranted the warning.

Just so you know, the Civil War wasnt about slaves only it was about where power fel in the US, the Southern states felt that the US was a Nation composed of Soverign States, whereas the Northern view is a Soverign Nation composed of States. a lot of difference there,
also, when Lincoln freed the slaves, he only Freed the southern slaves, Northern Slaves (and Yes Virginia, the Yankees owned Dark Folk Too) were not freed until the 18th (I think) ammendment was passed. and technically at the time of the Emancipation Proclamation first of it only Freed slaves liberated by Northern troops. as at the time the CSA was a country in its own right, and he had no power to set law in a foreign country.

I'm not sure about what you mean by race being controlled by opinion, you earlier said that by my opinion on the CSA flag, you assumed I was not Black.

The Civil War was principally about States Rights, whether or not the federal government had the right to supercede the decisions made by individual states, or not.
thats what I meant by the soverign states or soverign nation thing.



As to your assertion that the CSA was "it's own country", why then is the war referred to as the Civil War?
Because the North Won, had the South won it would have most likely been called the Second American Revolution.


Finally, if you believe that showing allegiance to a person in an internet game is worth the dishonour of flying a flag that has been a symbol of repression and enslavement, then fill your boots. All you have done is undermine what Lady Rebels said - which is that she was not flying the Confederate Flag. You are, and you'll be assessed accordingly, by me and others.

Best wishes,
DWC

I show my Solidarity to Her because I choose to. I had planned on putting my LOop logo on it or my rainbow Apple logo on it, but I chose not to.
and yes I consider LR to be a friend. not just a persion in an internet game.
Perhaps I will make a version of LR's flag with the Male symbol on it?

or perhaps I will fly whatever flag I darn Well Please to. and disregarde your opinion?

(I know I had said I wouldnt reply but Well I aparently Lied, dont plan on replying to further stuff in this topic)

Loop

For what it's worth, the war is not called The Civil War in the south. It's either called The War Between the States, or The War of Northern Agression.

However, none of that is important, and is a discussion that belongs in General. Quit hijacking the thread.

Understand.

From the Nation of Tanzarian.

Fellow nation of The South Pacific,

I have telegrammed you to inform you of my displeasure with our current UN delegate, LadyRebels.

As I have read the South Pacifics offsite forum, I've noticed that LadyRebels often uses some really foul language. She often makes very dirty, sexual references and posts racist jokes about minorities. I don't believe that she is a good representative for the South Pacific.

Also, I find her choice for her nations flag to be offensive and racist. I do not want a foul-mouthed racist for my UN delegate any longer, do you?

I'm asking you kindly to please consider unendorsing LadyRebels so we can have a better UN delegate. Thank you.

can be found on the sp offsite here. (http://invisionfree.com/forums/theSPacific/index.php?showtopic=1354)


you missed one. i've bolded and italicized. :wink: and as anyone who's msn'd with me in the last week knows. i use far more fouler language than anyone else i know. :wink: interesting that i tg'd fsend (francos) and asked for proof. none ever came... :( frankly the worst i've ever seen her say offsite is *fricker fracker firecracker* and if that's swearing you live in a very repressive society.

I'm not going to try to say what I did with my puppet, Tanzarian, wasn't underhanded and maybe even kinda evil, but isn't underhandedness apart of politics?

Exactly. that's why the major powers will not hesitate to "liberate" any country they find to be a terrorist state.

[$0.02]
I'm with Bisty there - I think I swear more than Lady Rebels does on the offsites ... and I think I've said this to another nation who complained about the offsite forums around here, membership of the offsite forums is a choice. You make a choice to join and participate, or not to.[/$0.02]

The topic at hand here is whether the mods overstepped their bounds by exposing the names of the puppets, not whether Lady Rebels' flag is racist.

I tend to agree with Savage that it was an unfair tactic to reveal the names, however, it certainly put your campaign into a spin, didn't it?

*flips another couple of pennies on to the table.*

frankly i think i was busy in RL when this happened. the first time i heard about these two being FS and Savage for sure was when i got sent this link... so from my pov at least savage revealed himself. :wink:

i think we have moved topics a little we are also discussing the post that made no mention that the tg's against LR were libellous. perhaps we should make a new thread?

*wanders out to the compy store for a treat*

*sits down again with a new thought...*

savage, go out and find a random person with no rascist feelings. call them a rascist... see what happens next. if he kicks your teeth in; it was probably an insult...

*definantly going to the compy store now before i get into trouble...*

[0.02]

yep me again, just like that bad penny that I threw on the table there :lol:

you know when it is all said and done, damage was done, and damage is being repaired, I hope, I so hope and pray.

As to revealing the names behind the puppets that did this, when it comes down to brass tacs it is nice to know that my enemies are not some faceless people.

I thought that I had let things go with my ideals of Francos Spain, I came to think of it as live and let live, when the Pacific Region really wanted him gone then he would be gone. Now he shows with all the true breeding of one of his elk, that now he is hungry for more, he wants the Pacific Regions.

Francos Spain and Savage Lands Reloaded, this is the statement I make to you now.

As long as there is a Government in the South Pacific that is freely elected by the Nations of the South Pacific, you will not have control of the Region, I will fight for the other Pacific Regions, side by side with any of the Delegates that need me to do so.

The West Pacific, region of my Creation.
The East Pacific, Loop you are a friend, and that Flag with the Male Symbol, I think would be cool :)
The North Pacific, may you never know such a war, but if you do remember the South Pacific is there for you.
The Rejected Realms, Kandrain I don't know how much help we can be to you, but know that we will help you if you ever need it, just say the word.

To any and all the Regions, Organizations, and Single Nations that helped in this matter.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart, we stand together with you side by side.

I owe an apology to Unseen People, I made a mistake in reading the post that they made on this thread and took it the wrong way, I hope that you can forgive me the slip up, I will not make any excuses for my actions here or in the off site, I just ask humbly for your forgiveness.

I will come here and check on things, I will comment where I see fit, but I wash my hands of this issue.

To the Nation States Moderators, I thank you ever so kindly for giving me the names of the ones that spread these lies about me, and I would also like to let you know, knowing that I don't come here offten, that each and everyone of you hold my deepest respect.

Take care and I hope that you do not go completely insane over this, but if you do, come visit the Insane Nudist Colony of LadyRebels, currently the Delegate of The South Pacific Region.

By the Grace of the South Pacific Nations.

[0.02]

yep me again, just like that bad penny that I threw on the table there :lol:

you know when it is all said and done, damage was done, and damage is being repaired, I hope, I so hope and pray.

As to revealing the names behind the puppets that did this, when it comes down to brass tacs it is nice to know that my enemies are not some faceless people.

I thought that I had let things go with my ideals of Francos Spain, I came to think of it as live and let live, when the Pacific Region really wanted him gone then he would be gone. Now he shows with all the true breeding of one of his elk, that now he is hungry for more, he wants the Pacific Regions.

Francos Spain and Savage Lands Reloaded, this is the statement I make to you now.

As long as there is a Government in the South Pacific that is freely elected by the Nations of the South Pacific, you will not have control of the Region, I will fight for the other Pacific Regions, side by side with any of the Delegates that need me to do so.

The West Pacific, region of my Creation.
The East Pacific, Loop you are a friend, and that Flag with the Male Symbol, I think would be cool :)
The North Pacific, may you never know such a war, but if you do remember the South Pacific is there for you.
The Rejected Realms, Kandrain I don't know how much help we can be to you, but know that we will help you if you ever need it, just say the word.

To any and all the Regions, Organizations, and Single Nations that helped in this matter.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart, we stand together with you side by side.

I owe an apology to Unseen People, I made a mistake in reading the post that they made on this thread and took it the wrong way, I hope that you can forgive me the slip up, I will not make any excuses for my actions here or in the off site, I just ask humbly for your forgiveness.

I will come here and check on things, I will comment where I see fit, but I wash my hands of this issue.

To the Nation States Moderators, I thank you ever so kindly for giving me the names of the ones that spread these lies about me, and I would also like to let you know, knowing that I don't come here offten, that each and everyone of you hold my deepest respect.

Take care and I hope that you do not go completely insane over this, but if you do, come visit the Insane Nudist Colony of LadyRebels, currently the Delegate of The South Pacific Region.

By the Grace of the South Pacific Nations.


:roll: Well I still question your use of the Confederate flag. Surely there are other ways of showing off your :roll: rebel :roll: side.

But off topic, I'm going to go get married now, so I don't have time for this. See you around folks! :twisted:

Apparently a nation recieved the following telegram from a moderator:

"1 minute ago NationStates Moderators The puppets and puppetmasters, Tanzarian (Savage Lands Reloaded) and Fsend (Francos Spain), have been warned for their mass TG spamming of this region."

How can the moderators justify declaring the names of the nations behind these puppets?

I'm not going to try to say what I did with my puppet, Tanzarian, wasn't underhanded and maybe even kinda evil, but isn't underhandedness apart of politics?

So is spying and using puppet nations to infiltrate against the rules in NationStates now? I think the Moderators seriously over-stepped their boundaries. Just let players play the game.
Well it is good to know that you and Francos Spain are one of the kind

But off topic, I'm going to go get married now, so I don't have time for this. See you around folks! :twisted:

then why exactly did you do what you did? why put all those people through those things?

*refrains from typing what she is saying.*

So does this mean we're allowed to call out puppets now?

So does this mean we're allowed to call out puppets now?

I believe us regular players are allowed to spill any amount of Intel we gather.

Ballotonia

:roll: Well I still question your use of the Confederate flag. Surely there are other ways of showing off your :roll: rebel :roll: side.

What is wrong with the Confederate flag? :roll:

Apparently a nation recieved the following telegram from a moderator:

"1 minute ago NationStates Moderators The puppets and puppetmasters, Tanzarian (Savage Lands Reloaded) and Fsend (Francos Spain), have been warned for their mass TG spamming of this region."

How can the moderators justify declaring the names of the nations behind these puppets?

I'm not going to try to say what I did with my puppet, Tanzarian, wasn't underhanded and maybe even kinda evil, but isn't underhandedness apart of politics?

So is spying and using puppet nations to infiltrate against the rules in NationStates now? I think the Moderators seriously over-stepped their boundaries. Just let players play the game.

No but tis how you did it ...you spammed the regional message board and everyone including my nation "kill real spam" told you to stop but you just went crazy and kept spamming and harrasing nations.

Hey Savage I hope that you have fun, Las Vegas is fun, just don't loose to much money in the Casinos, after all there is a reason that the Natives call it Lost Wages :lol:

and rest assured that when we meet on the battle field again that I will conduct things much as I have now, and we will meet again I feel before you take off, but you never know what will happen, after all the river does have alot of bends in it :twisted:

Hey Savage I hope that you have fun, Las Vegas is fun, just don't loose to much money in the Casinos, after all there is a reason that the Natives call it Lost Wages :lol:

You may get your revenge early. :twisted:

What makes you think you can use puppets to spam so there're no repercussions towards your main nations?

Rest assured, if a puppet's actions are bad enough, the main nation will be deleted/warned as well...

I'm gonna have to go with you on this one, Savage. It was wrong to reveal the owners of the puppets, whether or not you were doing something "illegal" with them. Not that it makes what you did any better. :x This makes me glad that I hardly ever revealed my puppets where you could see them. Why the heck did you do this, anyway. Well, that's beside the point. You did something against the rules, but they shouldn't have revealed who was behind it all.

Whoa, I was way off on this. I guess I didn't read far enough :oops: . I only read the first page, but I felt I should put my word in anyway. Oh, well.

The amount of telegrams was not necessarily reason enough for a warning. However, be cautioned. An over abudance of unsolicited telegrams is spam.

Regional recruiting in the game regions (RR, Lazarus, Pacifics) is allowed - as long as the recruiting message is not spammed across the board or telegrammed multiple times to the same individual.

Delegates and/or the author lobbying for their resolution via telegram is not spam unless multiple identical telegrams are sent to the same nation.



In this instance, it was the combined defammatory remarks and the number of messages that warranted the warning.

I think there is affair argument here (whether I agree or not), and I appreciate the full explanation there. That seems consistent with what I have read thus far on the rules.

I still think it was an error to release the name of their puppets, but as we all mistakes hopefully it is not a mistake to be repeated anytime soon.



So does this mean we're allowed to call out puppets now?

I believe us regular players are allowed to spill any amount of Intel we gather.

Ballotonia

Yeah, we are. I may be wrong, but wasn’t it a Mod who called the puppets out? Perhaps I misread…

When a player uses puppets to spam to keep the main nation from being found out...well...sometimes we Mods 'slip-up'...

... Yeah, we are. I may be wrong, but wasn’t it a Mod who called the puppets out? Perhaps I misread…
Yup. At 9:35 AM EST, Jan 8th, the following message was posted to the South Pacific's Civil Headquarters, and Fudgetopia saw it:
The puppets and puppetmasters, Tanzarian (Savage Lands Reloaded) and Fsend (Francos Spain), have been warned for their mass TG spamming of this region.


Putting my $.02 on the table, I feel it can be appropriate for mods to reveal the identities of those breaking game rules, whether they use puppets to do so or not.

If the charges are serious enough, yes to both revealing who and for punishment. Using puppets should not give a blank check to these people, anyone.

a side note: we are currently working on putting up our logs of those days. which is how detti could verify who wrote that message. (thank you detti i love you...)

Using puppets should not give a blank check to these people, anyone.

Exactly my point.

When a player uses puppets to spam to keep the main nation from being found out...well...sometimes we Mods 'slip-up'...

Punishment for player when they "slip-up" = Death
Punishment for moderator when he "slip-ups" = New permissions


When did I EVER state that it was not content but volume?

I merely cut and pasted from Savage Lands Reloaded own post when he asked what he'd done wrong.


Like every other gray rule in this game the legality of sending a mass number of telegrams is not defined well. Since it wasn't content but volume it falls in a gray area. Somehow in this case it was required to out the main nation of a puppet which was previously not regarded as acceptable behavior.



Using puppets should not give a blank check to these people, anyone.

Exactly my point.


No, but certainly if the offense isn't a deleteable behavior there is no reason to out the main nation. The only reason for outing one's main nation is to cause the main nation grief. This is griefing. "Play nice" applies to everyone. If a nation performs an act that is so attrocious that it requires deletion of a puppet than yes, delete all their nations. What do you gain by outing the main nation?

What do you gain by outing the main nation?
Simple, really. It makes them realize "hey, I can't use puppets to anonymously do bad stuff!"

What do you gain by outing the main nation?
Simple, really. It makes them realize "hey, I can't use puppets to anonymously do bad stuff!"

Sorry, guess I should've clarified that. Figured it was a "duh" thing.


As for defining spam rules, as every rule, they are intentionally kept gray for your own protection. I suppose we could just make black and white rules...and then wait to see how many complaints we have to dismiss because someone's found a loophole...

Every time I click on the last poster of this topic (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/templates/subSilver/images/icon_latest_reply.gif) to view this fascinating ongoing discussion, I get the following error:"No posts exist for this topic"
The latest (and final, at this writing) post by Neutered Sputniks shows up on page 6 of a 7 page topic.



As a forum admin on a different board, I suspect that the topic has become corrupted or the post count has gotten skewed due to post deletion. Not that it makes a difference in the greater scheme of things, but can anything be done about it?

As a forum admin on a different board, I suspect that the topic has become corrupted or the post count has gotten skewed due to post deletion. Not that it makes a difference in the greater scheme of things, but can anything be done about it?

Correct, specifically: post deletion.

There's nothing that can be done about it that would be worth the effort, I believe.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

What do you gain by outing the main nation?
Simple, really. It makes them realize "hey, I can't use puppets to anonymously do bad stuff!"

That can't be done by just informing them (puppet, Main nation, whatever)what they were doing was bad without telegramming everyone in the region every nation a player owns? You're trying to operate NationStates on the principle of "gray" rules so that they can be changed at will depending on the situation. If you want to operate that way fine. But you're going to run into situations just like this where even experienced players are not going to know when and where the rules will be interpreted against them. The application of the punishment in this situation was too harsh whether any moderator wants to admit it or not. We all know this to be true.


Sorry, guess I should've clarified that. Figured it was a "duh" thing.

Flamebaiting.


As for defining spam rules, as every rule, they are intentionally kept gray for your own protection. I suppose we could just make black and white rules...and then wait to see how many complaints we have to dismiss because someone's found a loophole...
That's funny, I never mentioned making the rules clearer. That must be something that you've read into it. I thought it was real obvious that the rules were grey because there is no way for anyone to have enough foresight to be able to make such rules. Or at least no one that is currently in charge of making the rules.

This entire thread has been about grey areas in the rules. It started with a complaint from one player about what he believed was a mod infraction of the rules. you may not have asked for clairification, but the rest of the thread is screaming out for it. Of interest is a quote by backwoods sasquatches where he does ask for clairification of many of the smaller parts of the spam rules.
take a look at what i found when i reread the entire thread:

I think we should let the moderator police these world, with in the boundary of law unless we want to change the law........get it???? :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :D :D :D :D


Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2004 1:49 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Savage Lands Reloaded wrote:
So does this mean that all those people who telegram Francos Spains and Poskreybyshevs endorsers telling them to unendorse them are breaking the rules? After all, they're using the same tactics, such as spamming all of their endorsers, as well as being defammatory in the telegrams.

I hope the mods clarify the status of the telegramming of Franco's Spain's endorsers. But "they're bad too" is a pretty pathetic excuse. You lied about LadyRebels, and you lied to a great many people. Regardless of whether it was against the rules you sinned against us, The gig is up; your hand has been shown. You know what you did is wrong[1], yet you're not showing the slightest bit of repentance.
Meh, I'm getting some sleep.

[1]"Ok, I lied. Lying is against the rules? I think not. It's morally wrong, ..."


Qfdsdiozbnf wrote:
Savage Lands, you are probably best off by forgetting this whole endevour, and write the whole thing off as a loss, before you get yourself banned.
No way, are you kidding? If the mods are wrong, then they're wrong, and we should argue it to doomsday. I personally have a lot of respect for the mods, and very much like one of them (you know who you are ), but I strongly believe the names of the puppet masters should not have been revealed.

I miss a lot, and again I will undercut what I know so as not to be a jerk. But I pay a lot of attention to the rules, and try to understand them. Last this issue was touched on (last couple times I am aware of actually) I believe the rule was that manual sending of a TM to massive people is allowed. I recall [Violet] posting that this sort of politicking was politics.

So, if the issue is size of TMs, then I am unsure how this fits into the other rulings I have seen. Again, I don’t read this inch by inch, so I could have missed a change, but I do recall Neutered Sputniks wrote:
in the past.

In terms of flaming, that would be different.

[quote="Neutered Sputniks"]When did I EVER state that it was not content but volume?

I merely cut and pasted from Savage Lands Reloaded own post when he asked what he'd done wrong.

My last post makes reference to the fact that the Telegrams were indeed defammatory...


And this is the ruling in question. So, it is an issue of content. Well, if we didn’t in the past, we now know that you can’t call a non-racist a racist. The comments are obviously considered derogatory. I think this should be considered a lesson learned, and that the parties involved should move forward.

The fact that no one has argues that she is a racists speaks volumes to me about that comment, I would assume it is untrue. I would not have engaged in this infraction, and I am not 100% where the line is really, but obviously this is not allowed.

1 Infinite Loop wrote:
whats wrong with the Confederate battle Flag?

Max hasn't banned it, it does not depict a swastica.
it is legal.


As well, while I do not have a confederate flag tattooed between my eyes, it clearly is not always intended as a tool for racism. That said, it often is.

While I do not agree with anyone who would state that confederate flag = racism, this would seem to be adequate to justify calling someone a racist incorrectly, rather then simply maliciously. As opposed to picking a random person and calling them racist, they called her racist (if I am reading this correctly) because of her use of the Stars and Bars. I don’t agree it is racist, but ALOTTA LOTTA people do. So, is the issue they called her racist, or the way the called her a racist. I did notice the langue seemed rather strong, and that could (again could) justify a warning. If it is simply because they called her racist, I would consider them to be incorrect, but not inflammatory.

Again, I know very little though.

Not to stab myself in the back or anything, I'm merely pointing out that the ruling here seems very one-sided. Francos used the same telegram as someone used against him, and I have talked with said player who told me he has never received a warning for that.

Of course, after all the times I've accused the mods of being one-sided in favor of Francos, I'm not sure that I shouldn't just sit down and shut up now.

Savage Lands Reloaded wrote:
Very well, but lying isn't against the rules of NationStates, at least it shouldn't be.

Just because something isn't against the rules doesn't make it all right. And just because the mods haven't handed down censure doesn't make something all right either.

The people TGing Franco's Spain's endorsers are responsible for their actions; you are responsible for yours.

Not to mention there is a large difference between the Francos incident and this issue. Mainly, for those who will argue they're the same issue, the diffierence is that Francos was a very hostile ruler whereas in the case of the South Pacific, this libel was an attempt to have LadyRebels removed from power unfairly. In other words: Francos was being all the things he was accused of being. LadyRebels was not.

Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:20 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have to wonder myself..if were not allowed to spam regions....how do you acount for UN nations mailing a form letter to every delegate IN THE UN, when they want you to endorse thier crappy proposal?

Wouldnt this be considered spam?

Or, if spamming is not allowed....how do we go about recruiting for a region?

The usual tactic is to mail several nations in one of the birthing regions a letter, inviting them to join you in your region.
Is this considered spam?

Does this mean recruiting nations in not allowed?

If not..this may be a double standard.


Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 1:45 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Francos Spain wrote:
But hey, I'll be happy to take a warning if it means Poskrebyshev and I can accrue endorsements without having to worry about them being picked away anymore by telegrams from the opposition to our endorsers... That is, unless this is one of those double-standard sort of things.


I’ve yet to see Neut say that this warning was given out because of the amount of telegrams. I have seen reference to the amount, but yet to see that this is alone against the rules. Not that I can demand anything from him, but I would ask for a direct answer to the question, as I imagine it is the same as when I saw it last mentioned by [violet].

Neutered, ignoring the potential libel or slander, did the players in question merit a warning based on the amount of TM’s sent? Thx.

Neutered Sputniks wrote:
Francos was being all the things he was accused of being. LadyRebels was not.


Though I would not agree with it, one could (and does) make the argument that the confederate flag is a symbol of racism.


Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:50 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So does this mean we're allowed to call out puppets now?


I think there is affair argument here (whether I agree or not), and I appreciate the full explanation there. That seems consistent with what I have read thus far on the rules.

I still think it was an error to release the name of their puppets, but as we all mistakes hopefully it is not a mistake to be repeated anytime soon.

Like every other gray rule in this game the legality of sending a mass number of telegrams is not defined well. Since it wasn't content but volume it falls in a gray area. Somehow in this case it was required to out the main nation of a puppet which was previously not regarded as acceptable behavior.


On a side note:

Dictatorial or authoriatian, no... even he's admitted to that once or twice but dispicable and immoral? That's libel, and just plain mean and underhanded.
that can be proven if you head on over to his offsite forum. ;) he has posted some things there that are so disgusting that i will be warned if i post the link to them.

I see a mistake here that should be addressed.

Look back and please note, the Moderators did not telegram everyone in the SP Region, the message that was sent out was on the South Pacific Regional/Headquaters Board where one of our Boardwatcher/Head Boardwatcher Fudgetopia got the message and let us know about it.

Thank you for listening to this little bit of something/nothing...... :D

I have been on all sides of this situation and reading this thread has brought these thoughts to the fore. IMHO:

1. The rule of law requires that laws be applied in the same way to all. Law is not situational. I say that the rule of law seems to be disappearing in Nation States.

2. Nation States is becoming a Compulsory Consumerist State. The delegates of the Pacifics seem to take any challenge to their delegacy personnally. Some will claim that's not true, that they are interested in the people's vote, but if you read between the lines it's obvious the people are to vote only for the delegate or friends of the delegate. Various nations have objected to Francos ruling the Pacific as a dictator. I don't see any difference between what he's done and the attitude of Lady Rebels or Loop. It looks like all the Pacifics are currently in lock-down mode. If the delegacy is passed at all, it will only be passed to an heir apparent. Even the North Pacific now has nations on its ban list and a thread on their board about banning nations attempting to take the delegacy.

Bistmath, that's great, except you left out the post where I explained the lines between politicking, recruiting, and telegram spam ;)

I have been on all sides of this situation and reading this thread has brought these thoughts to the fore. IMHO:

1. The rule of law requires that laws be applied in the same way to all. Law is not situational. I say that the rule of law seems to be disappearing in Nation States.

2. Nation States is becoming a Compulsory Consumerist State. The delegates of the Pacifics seem to take any challenge to their delegacy personnally. Some will claim that's not true, that they are interested in the people's vote, but if you read between the lines it's obvious the people are to vote only for the delegate or friends of the delegate. Various nations have objected to Francos ruling the Pacific as a dictator. I don't see any difference between what he's done and the attitude of Lady Rebels or Loop. It looks like all the Pacifics are currently in lock-down mode. If the delegacy is passed at all, it will only be passed to an heir apparent. Even the North Pacific now has nations on its ban list and a thread on their board about banning nations attempting to take the delegacy.

My Delegacy is different in several ways, as to Loop's I feel it is better that Loop explains that in their own words, but there is a difference with Loop's Delegacy as well.

I did not, nor have I ever in a Puppet or my Main Nation spread outright lies against another player, I have been accused of such in the past and been cleared by the Moderators of the Game.

I never spam people with unendorse your Delegate and get me into power, I do not do that, and I will never do so. I always hold out the hand of friendship, don't believe me there are 500+ Nations on my endorsement list that can verify that fact if you want to ask them yourself.

I only ask that if you are going to make a run for the Delegacy of the South Pacific that you honestly let eveyone get to know you, don't come in thinking that just because you have played the game a while and almost everyone knows you that you are a shoe in for it.

The South Pacific Nations fought off XYZ_Affair, and I promised them that if I did become Delegate that I would fight side by side to keep freedoms in the SP, I do not feel I have failed in that promise, because if I had I know with all certainy that I would not be the Delegate of the SP.

Just a few thoughts on that one for you to consider, before you go "locking" us all up in the same box as Francos Spain.

Bistmath, that's great, except you left out the post where I explained the lines between politicking, recruiting, and telegram spam ;)

*beats head slowling into desk....* :lol:

Bistmath, that's great, except you left out the post where I explained the lines between politicking, recruiting, and telegram spam ;)

*beats head slowling into desk....* :lol:

Yes, and the effects of that are showing up as spelling mistakes. :P

"I kan speel! Honistle i kan!" :mrgreen:

--The Jovial States of Cogitation
"Laugh about it for a moment."
NationStates Self-Proclaimed Court Jester

"I kan speel! Honistle i kan!" :mrgreen:

--The Jovial States of Cogitation
"Laugh about it for a moment."
NationStates Self-Proclaimed Court Jester

Don't Flame-Bait Loop. You may be a mod, but it simply isn't nice.





:twisted: :wink: :twisted:

That can't be done by just informing them (puppet, Main nation, whatever)what they were doing was bad without telegramming everyone in the region every nation a player owns? You're trying to operate NationStates on the principle of "gray" rules so that they can be changed at will depending on the situation. If you want to operate that way fine. But you're going to run into situations just like this where even experienced players are not going to know when and where the rules will be interpreted against them. The application of the punishment in this situation was too harsh whether any moderator wants to admit it or not. We all know this to be true.

So...you're saying that we shouldnt hold players responsible for their puppets? Sometimes the most effective deterrent to illegal action is to let their peers know of the culprit's indiscretions...



That's funny, I never mentioned making the rules clearer. That must be something that you've read into it. I thought it was real obvious that the rules were grey because there is no way for anyone to have enough foresight to be able to make such rules. Or at least no one that is currently in charge of making the rules.

Flamebaiting.

Bistmath, that's great, except you left out the post where I explained the lines between politicking, recruiting, and telegram spam ;)

*beats head slowling into desk....* :lol:

Yes, and the effects of that are showing up as spelling mistakes. :P

"I kan speel! Honistle i kan!" :mrgreen:

--The Jovial States of Cogitation
"Laugh about it for a moment."
NationStates Self-Proclaimed Court Jester

lol. :oops: d'oh. :lol: Just because i'm a primary school teacher, don't mean i cna splel. *of course the excuse for this time is detti's icy lab trying to crawl into my lap. ;) )

Looks like Savage lands has been doing a bit of Christian-trolling in the Pacific:
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2606405

Looks like Savage lands has been doing a bit of Christian-trolling in the Pacific:
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2606405

Yeah... about that...

Internation Incidents is about as wrong a forum as there is for that. Gameplay or Moderation is where it belonged. I'm guessing that you were filing a complaint, so... Moderation.

thanks, hack. :) umove?

That can't be done by just informing them (puppet, Main nation, whatever)what they were doing was bad without telegramming everyone in the region every nation a player owns? You're trying to operate NationStates on the principle of "gray" rules so that they can be changed at will depending on the situation. If you want to operate that way fine. But you're going to run into situations just like this where even experienced players are not going to know when and where the rules will be interpreted against them. The application of the punishment in this situation was too harsh whether any moderator wants to admit it or not. We all know this to be true.

So...you're saying that we shouldnt hold players responsible for their puppets? Sometimes the most effective deterrent to illegal action is to let their peers know of the culprit's indiscretions...


At this point staying out of this, bvecause I think a mistake was made in saying the name, but that isn't going to change anything. What FS did was ethicaly a bit wrong, no doubt. As well, it wasn't very nice, and I can see how it was ruled flaming.

Now, to your point Neut, the player should absolutely get the warning, not the nation. But I don't think outing the puppet was consistent with other punishemtns (tho I could always be wrong, as I don't follow what happens to a lot of people who break rules through puppets). As well, I think that it intetionally alters the game dynamic, by making an alliance known that was at that point still influencing the game.

That said, I think it was a mistake, but I don't see that either side is going to see eye to eye on this. It's past, and I hope only that it doesn't happen again.

So...you're saying that we shouldnt hold players responsible for their puppets?

Just reviewed my previous response. Nope, didn't say that anywhere.


Sometimes the most effective deterrent to illegal action is to let their peers know of the culprit's indiscretions...

Yes, embarrassment is an effective deterrent however it is to be used as a last resort. The reason is that the more you use it, the less effective it is. Eventually the target dosen't care about peer perceptions anymore then you have an even larger problem on your hands.

In this situation warning the experienced player that what they were doing was spam would have been sufficient. The nation in question most likely being an experienced player would have heeded the warning. However we'll never know now.

It wasnt about embarressment. It was about revealing a conspiracy that was resulting in insults being thrown that were malicious and defammatory.

But I don't think outing the puppet was consistent with other punishemtns (tho I could always be wrong, as I don't follow what happens to a lot of people who break rules through puppets). As well, I think that it intetionally alters the game dynamic, by making an alliance known that was at that point still influencing the game.

Many real life games have some kind of "penalty shot" or "foul shot" that is awarded to the opposing team when one team breaks the rules. What we have here is an analogous situation: A covert alliance that breaks the rules has an advantage granted to their opponents. Namely, being exposed.

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

It wasnt about embarressment. It was about revealing a conspiracy that was resulting in insults being thrown that were malicious and defammatory.

You previously said it had nothing to do with content but rather quantity. If you are now saying it was influenced by content then your argument has changed. But that's beside the point for now.
So now moderators are revealing game tactics? As I understand this thread the main nation telegramming would have never known you were revealing anything had the nation in receiving your telegram not posted the telegram off site. Using your moderator powers to supply private information to people that they couldn't get any other way is not fair in any way shape or form.
Using the arguement that they broke a gray rule so you get to provide secret information is two wrongs. They don't make a right.



Many real life games have some kind of "penalty shot" or "foul shot" that is awarded to the opposing team when one team breaks the rules. What we have here is an analogous situation: A covert alliance that breaks the rules has an advantage granted to their opponents. Namely, being exposed.


So now when a player breaks a rule he is going to get private information revealed to the opposing force? No matter how minor the rule? At what point did private information (i.e.- puppets) become open for public scrutiny? When will you start giving out e-mail addresses?

Where does it say anywhere that the mods cannot reveal puppets?

Where does it say anywhere that the mods cannot reveal puppets?

Where does it say they can? That's not the point though. They've never done it before, even in cases of extreme griefing or cheating. Why they suddenly decided to do it in a minor case of spamming I'll never understand.

:?:
Does not revealing the names of puppetmasters and exposing false propoganda, make Mods a political force in the game? If this is going to be the norm, could'nt Mods roleplay UN counter-insurgency or counter-terrorist units? Peace keeping units even?

I think it was more to teach people that puppets shouldn't be used to commit offenses so the main nation's reputation remains intact.

Where does it say anywhere that the mods cannot reveal puppets?

Where does it say they can't delete you because your name is Myrth? It doesn't. If we are to assume that anything that isn't written down is allowed to be done by the moderators then we have gone too far.
I like moderators. They have their usefulness. Just like government though every once in a while they overstep their bounds and if no one complains they'll just continually do it assuming that the behavior is acceptable. That's a reasonable position.

Up until this point (to my knowledge) the moderators have taken direct action against an offending nation by punishing that nation. Not by trying to affect the outcome of a situation. Although the fire in the UN halls was interesting however it was said it would never be repeated. What I'm seeing with this action is a moderator aiding an opposing force instead of taking direct action against the offending nation.

I don't want to see the moderators become some kind of force that tries to equalize play. I like the moderators in the position of policeman. You break the law, you get a punishment. Not, you hit a guy now I'll give the guy a stick and see what happens.

And 'policemen' we will be.

You must understand, though, that the use of a puppet to commit acts against the rules does not in any way exempt the main nation from punishment. In this case, the most poignant method was the revelation of puppet's master.

Where does it say anywhere that the mods cannot reveal puppets?

Where does it say they can? That's not the point though. They've never done it before, even in cases of extreme griefing or cheating. Why they suddenly decided to do it in a minor case of spamming I'll never understand.

That's not entirely true... Most of the illegal activities conducted with puppets are serious enough grievances that the main nation and the puppet are deleted.

Just wanted to chime in here.

Apparently a nation recieved the following telegram from a moderator:

A telegram being a message sent in private.

"1 minute ago NationStates Moderators The puppets and puppetmasters, Tanzarian (Savage Lands Reloaded) and Fsend (Francos Spain), have been warned for their mass TG spamming of this region."

How can the moderators justify declaring the names of the nations behind these puppets?

You’re talking like the mods posted in the forum "The nation of (Whatever) control these puppets- (List of names). It was a telegram, not something everything can seen by the public. Why didn't you simply censor out the names of the puppet nations if you were going to post it in the forums?

I'm not going to try to say what I did with my puppet, Tanzarian, wasn't underhanded and maybe even kinda evil, but isn't underhandedness apart of politics?

As long as you don't break rules Which you did, then yeah it's legal to play the game.

I don't want to get involved in this debate, just wanted to drop my ideas into the fray.

~Bas

Looks like Savage lands has been doing a bit of Christian-trolling in the Pacific:
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2606405

Yeah... about that...

Internation Incidents is about as wrong a forum as there is for that. Gameplay or Moderation is where it belonged. I'm guessing that you were filing a complaint, so... Moderation.
Sorry about that. Thanks for moving it to the appropriate forum.

Just wanted to chime in here.

...

You’re talking like the mods posted in the forum "The nation of (Whatever) control these puppets- (List of names). It was a telegram, not something everything can seen by the public. Why didn't you simply censor out the names of the puppet nations if you were going to post it in the forums?
When Savage Lands Reloaded started this thread, a mod had already pubically confirmed (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2549869#2549869) the identities of the puppets. As an aside, the message Savage Lands Reloaded quoted was actually from the South Pacific's regional HQ.

"1 minute ago NationStates Moderators The puppets and puppetmasters, Tanzarian (Savage Lands Reloaded) and Fsend (Francos Spain), have been warned for their mass TG spamming of this region."



A point I would like to clarify, is that I saw the message, it was posted on our regional boards. It was not telegrammed to me.

I saw the post, and reported it in the South Pacific forums.

I see. Ok then, that makes sense. The way I saw it, it seemed as if it was a telegram, not something on a regions message boards.

It wasnt about embarressment. It was about revealing a conspiracy that was resulting in insults being thrown that were malicious and defammatory.

You previously said it had nothing to do with content but rather quantity. If you are now saying it was influenced by content then your argument has changed. But that's beside the point for now.

Actually, while I wound frame the structure of his argument as organic as opposed to linear, at one time he does clarify that it was content. However, there seemed to be the tinge of quantity being a possible factor. It wasn’t clearly argued, but he did present that the context was a crux of the “breaking the rules” issue.



Many real life games have some kind of "penalty shot" or "foul shot" that is awarded to the opposing team when one team breaks the rules. What we have here is an analogous situation: A covert alliance that breaks the rules has an advantage granted to their opponents. Namely, being exposed.


So now when a player breaks a rule he is going to get private information revealed to the opposing force? No matter how minor the rule? At what point did private information (i.e.- puppets) become open for public scrutiny? When will you start giving out e-mail addresses?


Keep in mind it was not a minor rule. It was rather malicious, and at least spooning up to greifing if not outright greifing. Now, I’m not biased against the man, I like FS in a lot of ways. Nice guy, would love to bring him down for a day or two, but nice guy. I still disagree with his tactic here and I don’t consider it all that minor.

However, I do not believe the “penalty shot” has ever been used before (which seems unfair) and I do not believe it was the proper punishment for the crime. Let’s not pretend he was innocent here, he wasn’t precisely innocent. I believe he thought he was legit, but that is no reason to ignore that it was a low tactic. If you want to argue that no real infraction happened, not sure you will push that boulder far up the hill. If you want to argue mod interference in the game, in a way a-typical to how others are treated, to me there you have an argument.

Again, though, I know nothing.

:?:
Does not revealing the names of puppetmasters and exposing false propoganda, make Mods a political force in the game? If this is going to be the norm, could'nt Mods roleplay UN counter-insurgency or counter-terrorist units? Peace keeping units even?

I think it is difficult to keep politics out of moderating, but it should be kept separate. I think all, or at least most mods would agree that moderation should be without politics.

I don't believe the mods attempted to bring politics to the moderation, nor do I think they should. SO, I would siagree with you, and believe the mods would as well. Then again, I know nothing.

The difference here, Ackbar, is that (as I stated before) most players breaking similar rules also have committed, or do commit, other 'crimes' that cause their deletion.

And there have been many times that puppets have been called out in the forums.

Where does it say anywhere that the mods cannot reveal puppets?

Where does it say they can't delete you because your name is Myrth?

How many times has NS been described as a fairly liberal Dictatorship?
As far I knew, Admin had authority to do anything they wanted, even delete Myrth because they're called Myrth. And the mods are just mini-admins, meaning they can delete Myrth because Mryth is called Myrth, provided admin doesn't hasn't said, 'Don't delete nations called Myrth because they're called Myrth!'

I do my best to keep my puppets secret, yet I would not call in the mods if anyone, mod or otherwise, stood up in the forum and shouted, '[insert my puppetname here] IS PENTASTAR'S PUPPET!!!!!'
I'd beat my head against my monitor a few times, and then find the hole in my security. Granted, if it was a mod that said that, I would ask 'Why', but if I received the answer that my puppet had broken the rules, I would (provided I had commited the offence) simply shut up and hang my head in shame at being publicly ridiculed.

Anyway, the only positive rule is the word of [violet], [rep], or even [dredd]. Chances are nothing will happen until admintervention.

Unless, of course, this is admin testing the mods. I don't actually suspect that, but it's a funny idea...

I can see I am in the minority here. I bow to the moderators/all other game players. Spread private game information as you see fit.

And Pentastar, It is not me who got called out. I actually have yet to have any moderator action taken against me in my full year in this game. At least to my knowledge.

During this time I've seen the game turn from a game of players interacting with each other having fun to a game where every step made has to be second guessed lest moderator action befall you. I think Savage Lands Reloaded was right for objecting to the action. I still think that but as with all other evolution, adapt or die.

And Pentastar, It is not me who got called out. I actually have yet to have any moderator action taken against me in my full year in this game. At least to my knowledge.
Not saying it was, actually had enough functional computer time to read the whole thread :)


During this time I've seen the game turn from a game of players interacting with each other having fun to a game where every step made has to be second guessed lest moderator action befall you. I think Savage Lands Reloaded was right for objecting to the action. I still think that but as with all other evolution, adapt or die.

With the increase to half a million nations, that's not actually surprising. I have not been here as long as you, I suspect, yet I assume that with the influx of nations, the amount of trouble increased. More good players, more flamers/spammers/etc* Therefore, the mods have become more active by necessity. Also, more rules have been created with time, therefore more have been enforced.
~<|>~


*(lest it be misinturpereted (sp?) this is not a reference to the debate here).

There are thousands of players who never come into contact with the Mods. Stating that the rules have become too stringent is, well, quite naive. The rules have matured as this game has, but that doesnt mean that the mods are being over-aggressive.

I personally disagree. The rules in some areas are definitely too stringent. Most are perfectly fine though. Some are developed from principles that, though admirable, are horribly naive when it comes down to actually having to follow them. Take password distribution. With a 5,000 nation region and the 15 second spamblock it comes down to 21 hours of straight telegramming, by that point natives would have complained. Is it fair that it's therefore next to impossible to password huge regions as an invader, or harder for larger regions than smaller? No. Then there's the spamming issue in itself. Changing the password twice in the whole update has just been provisionally outlawed. Is it fair that invaders therefore can't change the password more than once every 5 hours? No.

I think most Mods do a fine job.
However, there are a small number who take thier jobs as mods FAR too seriously, and limit other peoples enjoyment of this game.

This is not to say that ALL mods do this.
No. Or that even those who are guilty of over-zealousness, do it intentionally.

Nevetheless, it happens.

The mods are mostly decent people.
Dont let one or two bad apples spoil the bunch.

The following is not directed at anyone specifically but rather reflects some general observations I've made over the last 2 months.

I've been on NS daily for about 2 months. During that time, I've read just about every thread in moderation, trying to get a feel for how the game is played. What I've come to see on a fairly frequent basis is a small minority of players who seek specificity in where the line is drawn, seemingly so that they can play as close to the line as possible, sometimes right on top of the line.

Intentionally or not, it reads as though players are seeking to define the line not so that they can keep well within the line, but so that they can seek out those spots where the line may be gray or uneven, and exploit that to their advantage. It's as though they are less interested in where the loop lies, and more interested in where the loophole can be found. I'm baffled by the continuous string of questions that are variations on a theme of "This is questionable and probably not legal but since it's not explicity outlawed, can I do it?"

I recall sometime back one of the mods, I think it may have been Neut, stating that regarding nativity "invaders know who they are, and defenders know who they are" (that's a poor paraphrase). I remember thinking that it was a cogent and clear explanation of nativity. I remember another mod stating that the overarching rule was "play nice".

"Play Nice" seems so easy to understand and so easy to follow. Clearly, it's not an issue for thousands of players to abide by that philosophy. I guess I don't understand how that can be so clear to some, and so open to argument for others...

Because Play Nice is highly ambiguous. My interpretation is that when someone is down on he ground begging for mercy you don't shoot them unless you know from past experience they're lying through their teeth. Other than that my government and my alliance are pretty ruthless. People will say in an AIM chat, "I agree to this only if you don't background check me" and I'll say to my colleague in a private IM window, "Start background checking him." It's politics, not personal and I'd expect the same from anyone.

I can see I am in the minority here. I bow to the moderators/all other game players. Spread private game information as you see fit.

Perhaps it is accidental, but this reeks of insincerity. This has been a good, and open discussion thus far. If you wish to continue to discuss, do. Otherwise don't simply fall on the floor with polite, yet seeingly forcibly-subdued silent protest.

If you want to discuss it, do. Otherwise don't. No need to be overly sharp about it. I disagree with many posts here, but have found optinions open if nothing else.

The rules have changed. I think he realizes there's no point in continiuing the argument. I just hope this ruling doesn't come back to bite us down the road.

The following is not directed at anyone specifically but rather reflects some general observations I've made over the last 2 months.

I've been on NS daily for about 2 months. During that time, I've read just about every thread in moderation, trying to get a feel for how the game is played. What I've come to see on a fairly frequent basis is a small minority of players who seek specificity in where the line is drawn, seemingly so that they can play as close to the line as possible, sometimes right on top of the line.

Intentionally or not, it reads as though players are seeking to define the line not so that they can keep well within the line, but so that they can seek out those spots where the line may be gray or uneven, and exploit that to their advantage. It's as though they are less interested in where the loop lies, and more interested in where the loophole can be found. I'm baffled by the continuous string of questions that are variations on a theme of "This is questionable and probably not legal but since it's not explicity outlawed, can I do it?"

I recall sometime back one of the mods, I think it may have been Neut, stating that regarding nativity "invaders know who they are, and defenders know who they are" (that's a poor paraphrase). I remember thinking that it was a cogent and clear explanation of nativity. I remember another mod stating that the overarching rule was "play nice".

"Play Nice" seems so easy to understand and so easy to follow. Clearly, it's not an issue for thousands of players to abide by that philosophy. I guess I don't understand how that can be so clear to some, and so open to argument for others...

I was actually the Mod that made both those statements. And you're right. We refuse to draw lines because then players would do everything they could to get around them, and we'd have to continually redraw them.

As for the password spam, MrNonchalant, if you'll recall, Sal and I both responded immediately that there were certain considerations to be taken into account before you determined how often you were going to change the password. You then continued to push the issue, and were given a more definitive answer - thus, the less desireable response you wound up with is a direct result of your inability to accept a Mod ruling you dont like.

With a 5,000 nation region and the 15 second spamblock it comes down to 21 hours of straight telegramming, by that point natives would have complained.

There is not even one 1000+ nation region in this game where a password can be set. The largest is Europe, with currently 834 nations. Since delegate access is turned off there, you will not have to worry about password distribution after having invaded it. Also, passwords become close to pointless when a region gets to be very large: no matter how it is distributed, some nation will leak it even before you've finished distribution. On top of that: there's no reason why a coordinated attack with numerous nations has to be followed by just one nation sending out the password to all natives. The same nations who helped to invade are allowed to help sending out a password.

I recently sent out a TM (manually) to ~85 region members (informing them all of an upcoming election for delegate). It takes some time, but such numbers are quite doable as long as you don't rotate through passwords at high speed.

While it certainly is the right of an invader delegate to password the region to have some control over who goes in and out, do keep in mind that it is fair game for the natives to organize a counter-attack. Utilizing a tactic that would disallow them doing so (by having scripts to guard the region for you by rotating passwords) is IMHO not fair play.

Ballotonia

[quote="Hatchibombitar"]I've been on NS daily for about 2 months. During that time, I've read just about every thread in moderation, trying to get a feel for how the game is played. What I've come to see on a fairly frequent basis is a small minority of players who seek specificity in where the line is drawn, seemingly so that they can play as close to the line as possible, sometimes right on top of the line.
[quote]

I A) disagree with your assesnment and B) would have no problem if it were true and people were actually playing the letter of the law. That is what the law is.

I A) disagree with your assesnment and B) would have no problem if it were true and people were actually playing the letter of the law. That is what the law is.

I think it was Neut that said "some people could find a loophole in a brick wall." Which brings me back to a point that I've making for months now. There should be an arbitration mechanism installed in the mechanics of the game.

I think it was Neut that said "some people could find a loophole in a brick wall." Which brings me back to a point that I've making for months now. There should be an arbitration mechanism installed in the mechanics of the game.
(That was Hack's line, and a very clever one at that).

The problem with installing any kind of "arbitration system" (assuming that one could be installed) is that none of the possibilities I can think of would meet with general approval from the people who would want one:

Option 1The Status Quo
While some sectors of the community might argue otherwise, the mods and admin constitute an arbitration panel as is. You say "This nation is harrassing me" and we say "We'll look into it". You say "I don't like your decision, Mr/Ms/Mrs Mod" and we say "Tell admin". Sometimes admin will overturn a decision taken at this level.
Obviously if we do nothing, then arguments in favour of an arbitration panel will still be made, since we don't appear to act in the way the arguer wishes at any given time. The fact that an arbitration panel wouldn't necessarily act otherwise is left as a strange form of moot point.

Option 2Trusted Players
A group of respected players could be set up to review complaints against mods and so on. This group would provide a means of making complaints against the mods without involving the mods (who, for the sake of argument, will always protect their own).
The problem here is in the composition of the group. Players who you trust and respect might not be trusted and respected by the next player and so on. Heaven help us if we weigh into the debate and say "You know, [player] is the right sort of person for this", since that would then risk a talented player being passed over for being a stooge of the mods.
Assuming we somehow manage to assemble this group, they'd have to be prepared to undertake - in some situations - as much research as we mods have previously undertaken, to prove the legality or otherwise of an invasion for example. This runs the risk at least of re-inventing the wheel and at most of divulging what are intended to be our secret ways of finding out multis and griefers to non-mods.

Option 3Computers
This is more a joke solution than a viable one, but it is theoretically possible that arbitration could be carried out by a computer designed for the purpose. This would have the same risks as moderation by computer, as there are many grey-areas (some of which are grey through lack of need to have rules all over them, and others which are intentionally grey) which a moderator needs to police and which a computer would have great difficulty policing.

So there you have it - why an arbitration system isn't going to meet with anything like the approval it would need to to be viable.

[quote="Hatchibombitar"]I've been on NS daily for about 2 months. During that time, I've read just about every thread in moderation, trying to get a feel for how the game is played. What I've come to see on a fairly frequent basis is a small minority of players who seek specificity in where the line is drawn, seemingly so that they can play as close to the line as possible, sometimes right on top of the line.
[quote]

I A) disagree with your assesnment and B) would have no problem if it were true and people were actually playing the letter of the law. That is what the law is.
I make no claim that my assessment is accurate, only that it represents the conclusions I've drawn based on what I've observed during a relatively narrow window of time. Others might draw entirely different, and equally valid, conclusions.

I think perhaps we just see things differently. From my perspective, trying to define "the law" as specifically as possible in order to play right up the edge is inherently in conflict with the overarching mandate to "play nice". Maybe it's because I'm looking at the spirit of the law, while you're looking at the letter of the law.

There's a difference between playing the letter of the law, and attempting to have the law defined so strictly that loopholes are able to be taken advantage of.

I think it was Neut that said "some people could find a loophole in a brick wall." Which brings me back to a point that I've making for months now. There should be an arbitration mechanism installed in the mechanics of the game.
(That was Hack's line, and a very clever one at that).

The problem with installing any kind of "arbitration system" (assuming that one could be installed) is that none of the possibilities I can think of would meet with general approval from the people who would want one:

Option 1The Status Quo
While some sectors of the community might argue otherwise, the mods and admin constitute an arbitration panel as is. You say "This nation is harrassing me" and we say "We'll look into it". You say "I don't like your decision, Mr/Ms/Mrs Mod" and we say "Tell admin". Sometimes admin will overturn a decision taken at this level.
Obviously if we do nothing, then arguments in favour of an arbitration panel will still be made, since we don't appear to act in the way the arguer wishes at any given time. The fact that an arbitration panel wouldn't necessarily act otherwise is left as a strange form of moot point.

Option 2Trusted Players
A group of respected players could be set up to review complaints against mods and so on. This group would provide a means of making complaints against the mods without involving the mods (who, for the sake of argument, will always protect their own).
The problem here is in the composition of the group. Players who you trust and respect might not be trusted and respected by the next player and so on. Heaven help us if we weigh into the debate and say "You know, [player] is the right sort of person for this", since that would then risk a talented player being passed over for being a stooge of the mods.
Assuming we somehow manage to assemble this group, they'd have to be prepared to undertake - in some situations - as much research as we mods have previously undertaken, to prove the legality or otherwise of an invasion for example. This runs the risk at least of re-inventing the wheel and at most of divulging what are intended to be our secret ways of finding out multis and griefers to non-mods.

Option 3Computers
This is more a joke solution than a viable one, but it is theoretically possible that arbitration could be carried out by a computer designed for the purpose. This would have the same risks as moderation by computer, as there are many grey-areas (some of which are grey through lack of need to have rules all over them, and others which are intentionally grey) which a moderator needs to police and which a computer would have great difficulty policing.

So there you have it - why an arbitration system isn't going to meet with anything like the approval it would need to to be viable.

I like option 2, Biggie sized with Fries and a Sweet tea.
seriously, I dont worship nor hate the mods, and with as much as they have on their plates already, perhaps [violet] can co opt out some jobs, like "moderting" the UN list, perhaps 3 or 4 players who watch it for stuff that violates the rules, However I say now, the players who are chosen must not be of all one group, I would recomend one RPer, one Invader, one non aligned or two non aligned. this goes for the next thing Im gonna type about as well.

Maby a few who do the issues that are submitted, cleaning them up and what not, the blatant stupid ones botoing them and letting the writer know, and setting those who pass into the mechanism.

and of course the player review board, however it would only be in extreme circumstances, I see no point in putting every action under the microscope, then our mods would be as leashed up as the average Cop.

if this souds good please let me know, Input is your Friend.

But who elects them?

The 20,000+ players we have?


Or just the forum regulars?

But who elects them?

The 20,000+ players we have?


Or just the forum regulars?

LMAO - and who would know to vote in the thread? the 20,000 + players we have? Or just the forum regulars?

Jeez Cartman - Give it a rest.

There's a difference between playing the letter of the law, and attempting to have the law defined so strictly that loopholes are able to be taken advantage of.

And thus we protect a moderator that just can't stand and deliver when it comes to explaining why they were such an ass when they screwed up in moderating.

Oh wait - lemme guess - I'm flaming.

I've been watching the forum - I've been seeing stupid stuff going on. I'm guessing I'm going to get a forum ban for crying FOUL because i speak up.

It's infuriating to see this crap go on.

Laterz.

//crosses paws and waits for the heavy hand

There's a difference between playing the letter of the law, and attempting to have the law defined so strictly that loopholes are able to be taken advantage of.

And thus we protect a moderator that just can't stand and deliver when it comes to explaining why they were such an ass when they screwed up in moderating.

Oh wait - lemme guess - I'm flaming.

I've been watching the forum - I've been seeing stupid stuff going on. I'm guessing I'm going to get a forum ban for crying FOUL because i speak up.

It's infuriating to see this crap go on.

Laterz.

//crosses paws and waits for the heavy hand

Actually, LM, It's good to see you back, I've missed you. I do wish that you'd tone it down a little (not saying content, just ways of saying it). This message is kinda flame baitish. Not a formal warning, but lets not get things off on the wrong foot? You can make your points just as well while being polite, and we both know it.

(Now directed to all readers) Despite what some players may think, none of the moderators intrinsically dislike being questions, PROVIDED that the person questioning is willing to listen to what we have to say, and doesn't just attack us because we are authority, but instead questions us because he doesn't think that something has been handled in the ways that it should. One other thing, which is more unique to the forum medium, is the fact that moderators do have the right to declare a debate closed, when this happens, if you feel strongly enough, you contact the administrators.

Constructive and thoughtful critique helps us to improve (and stay honest).

http://www.weirdozone.0catch.com/projects/nationstates/salusasecondus/salusasecondus2.jpg
SalusaSecondus
Tech Modling
PGP: 0x0604DF3E

P.S. Please don't try to play the martyr, we really don't like it and it doesn't add to your point or post.

A shot in the dark here, a truly democratic arbitration system along the lines of the current UN setup.

A shot in the dark here, a truly democratic arbitration system along the lines of the current UN setup.
Do you mean the real-world UN or the one on the site?

In response to Loop's suggestion/s, the idea is not entirely without merit but admin has previously indicated that issue editing (for example) should only be done by game mods for various reasons. Even moderation of the UN proposal list is something that requires slightly more resources than are or should be available to the average player.

well basically my suggestion would call for Mini Mods, who only have power in their part of the mod process, just making a sugesiton to help you guyw with the workload.

well basically my suggestion would call for Mini Mods, who only have power in their part of the mod process, just making a sugesiton to help you guyw with the workload.
As I say, it's a good idea. The catch would seem to be that any freshly-minted mini-mods would more than likely be restricted to Forum Mod duties. When we talk (as mods, in our secret forum...) about "Should X be appointed as a mod?", we consider the whole gamut of what they'd have to do. I suppose we could end up modifying our thought patterns to use this new system, but the catch would be whether any of the powers-that-be would feel comfortable with allowing more people to wield some form of power - that and whether the game could be coded appropriately.

Actually, LM, It's good to see you back, I've missed you. I do wish that you'd tone it down a little (not saying content, just ways of saying it). This message is kinda flame baitish. Not a formal warning, but lets not get things off on the wrong foot? You can make your points just as well while being polite, and we both know it.


Sorry - Buying a house today and gotta move in the middle of winter - and I have a really lousy Mortgage guy who's kept me guessing all the way till the last moment.

I'll make the points like usual and not overtly flamebaitish .

But who elects them?

The 20,000+ players we have?


Or just the forum regulars?

LMAO - and who would know to vote in the thread? the 20,000 + players we have? Or just the forum regulars?

Jeez Cartman - Give it a rest.

I trust no one so insinctively I fear any move to giving more power to other players. Almost.

I have even more of a desire (then my afore mentioned fear) to get players more into the game, to help saturate players into the "community" of nationstates-- to give players more ownership and direction when it comes to what is happening.

As such, I would be for voting in forum regulars. Hold vote in each forum-- each forum can vote in 5 players from their forum. No nation can be nominated for more then one forum. That would yeild what, 50 diferent positons, each in different forums tho- so there would not be overlap.

I think this would likely solve nothing, but I would still be for the idea.