NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, I was just wondering, is it legal to send out political telegrams, such as asking nations to unendorse a delegate, and presenting your case for why they should unendorse said delegate in the telegram?

I've always assumed that it's legal, as nations send political telegrams to Francos Spains endorsers frequently, and I've never heard about any of them getting in trouble for it.

Also, I know it's illegal to lie and say defammatory things about the target nation, but what if the true actions of the nation in question are defammatory in and of themselves? I couldn't get in trouble just for spreading the truth about the nation, could I?

Of course you can. Political telegrams are part of the game. Just be careful not to over send telegrams, like when asking for people to join a region. That could be considered spamming.

Just use moderation and you'll be ok.

You'll have to wait for a mod ruling on the last part.

Of course you can. Political telegrams are part of the game. Just be careful not to over send telegrams, like when asking for people to join a region. That could be considered spamming.

Just use moderation and you'll be ok.

You'll have to wait for a mod ruling on the last part.

Ahh, that also brings up another good point, Basenji. What is over-sending, exactly?

I mean, look at all the delegates of the feeder regions. You don't get 500, 600, and even 700 endorsements without sending out a LOT of "Please endorse me" telegrams to UN nations.

So how much is too much, exactly? Or is there even a limit on how many telegrams you can send out? I mean, I realize you can't send one nation 20 telegrams and not expect to get in trouble for it, but if you send, say 100 nations one telegram each, would that be considered ok?

Dang, what I said came out wrong. Let me re-say it...

From what I've seen on Mod rulings, you can send as many telegrams out as you want. You just have to make sure that you don't send one person too many telegrams. That would be bad.

Dang, what I said came out wrong. Let me re-say it...

From what I've seen on Mod rulings, you can send as many telegrams out as you want. You just have to make sure that you don't send one person too many telegrams. That would be bad.

Ahh, ok. Thanks for your help, Basenji. I would still like to see what a moderator has to say on the matter, though.

No problem.

I would still like to see what a moderator has to say on the matter, though.

Of course. I'd very much like to see if I was right or not.

Personally, if it was indeed that actual truth, I don't see why you couldn't spread it...unless that person has turned over a new leaf or something. Bah, it is complicated.

I couldn't get in trouble just for spreading the truth about the nation, could I?
Truth is variable. One person's truth is another's defamatory racist remark or flamebaiting lie. There is also a huge difference between an in-character slam on a character from the nation versus a slam on the player running the nation. That distinction would be lost on a lot of the newbies who aren't forum regulars.

I don't see how it's possible to rule on the truth or untruth as a class in advance. I've seen some posts in Gameplay from the Mouth of El Sabah Nur that were supposedly truth but were couched in language that made them totally unbelieveable. Excellent IC work, but not appropriate for a general audience of non-RPers.

When sending political telegrams (i.e. telling someone not to endorse someone because [whatever])

1. Make sure what you're posting doesn't break the rules in the ToS or the Etiquette section of the FAQ.
2. Only send one telegram unless the recipient replies with queries.
3. Any usings of 'true things' should be strictly NS related and have nothing to do with real life. This means that you may use things like "He's a region crasher who only cares about power." but not things like "He's a fan of Gary Glitter" and suchlike.
4. If someone doesn't want you telegramming them, then don't.

There may be other things, but that's what I'd work on.

When sending political telegrams (i.e. telling someone not to endorse someone because [whatever])

1. Make sure what you're posting doesn't break the rules in the ToS or the Etiquette section of the FAQ.
2. Only send one telegram unless the recipient replies with queries.
3. Any usings of 'true things' should be strictly NS related and have nothing to do with real life. This means that you may use things like "He's a region crasher who only cares about power." but not things like "He's a fan of Gary Glitter" and suchlike.
4. If someone doesn't want you telegramming them, then don't.

There may be other things, but that's what I'd work on.

Many thanks, Sirocco. You can lock this thread if you so wish....

Many thanks, Sirocco. You can lock this thread if you so wish....
I'd like to see this topic remain open and a few more mods weigh in. King Siroc had most of it right, but this line ...
"He's a region crasher who only cares about power."
... is opinion, not fact. He may be a proven region crasher, but his motivation may be interpreted entirely differently depending on which side of the argument he represents. I think this ruling opens the door wide for abuse.

signed,
Frisbeeteria (a player who is more interested in keeping the game fun for its own sake than getting involved in regional conspiracies and takeovers)

do you have a copy of the telegram? i'd love to add it to my collection.

You mean the telegram that was sent out to all of twoslit's endorsers? It's all over the North Pacific boards, I'm sure you've seen it.

Hello North Pacific neighbor! I've telegrammed you because I have grown concerned over the actions of our delegate, The twoslit experiment.

Recently, The twoslit experiment ejected two nations, Nootroughsis and Domocolees, simply because they had a lot of endorsements and were challenging him for the delegates seat. These actions do not seem very democratic to me.

In fact, the only nations that The twoslit experiment deems worthy of challenging him for the delegate seat are his hand-picked best friends.

These very undemocratic actions have caused me to unendorse him, as I would like to have a truly democratic delegate who would let anyone challenge him/her for the delegates seat.

Please consider unendorsing our current delegate, The twoslit experiment, for a truly free and democratic North Pacific. Thank you for your time.
It might also be amusing to note that this telegram was sent to twoslit himself ;)

Many thanks, Sirocco. You can lock this thread if you so wish....
I'd like to see this topic remain open and a few more mods weigh in. King Siroc had most of it right, but this line ...
"He's a region crasher who only cares about power."
... is opinion, not fact. He may be a proven region crasher, but his motivation may be interpreted entirely differently depending on which side of the argument he represents. I think this ruling opens the door wide for abuse.

signed,
Frisbeeteria (a player who is more interested in keeping the game fun for its own sake than getting involved in regional conspiracies and takeovers)

That's what makes it political Frisbeeteria. :wink: I should have elaborated on that. Politicians use these kind of comments all the time; the motivation is often twisted around in any case. Giving misleading motives of opponents has been around ever since two cavemen decided to have a democratic election. As long as the comments aren't personal, it's fine.

For example:

He's a region crasher who only cares about power

This is OK, there's nothing to get offended at here; it's politics. People can testify against being power-mad if they wish or they can go along with it. Who knows? It may be the true reason.

He's a prat.

Not OK, this is a personal remark.

The men in his country live under fear of their oppressors!!

This is OK. Better than OK really as it has an RP element.

Don't endorse him! He ejected me because I'm gay/liberal/red-haired!
Not OK. Even if it's true, it's not a good idea to introduce personal disputes to your argument. Keep things strictly IC.

Don't endorse him! He ejected me because my country's people are gay/liberal/red-haired!

This is semi-OK. You should only use things as controversial as this if you can back it up.

Any questions?

Yes, I was just wondering, is it legal to send out political telegrams, such as asking nations to unendorse a delegate, and presenting your case for why they should unendorse said delegate in the telegram?Is it okay to send out a few political telegrams? Sure.

Is it okay to spam an entire region? No.

This particular spamming with puppets was purly political, though.I don't have a problem with what he said, much in the same way I don't have a problem with the content of your usual region-advertisement spam. Spamming is spamming. He spammed, got warned, spammed again, got deleted.

The fact that even twoslit got this message--which would just be silly even if ex-ex-Savage Lands was just copy and pasting (but I for one favor the scriptkiddie theory)--simply says to me "This was not targeted by any means whatsoever." That's spam.

Oh, and just in case it wasn't well known, I'm not omniscient. I only know about these things when people complain. Then I check it and there ya go.

I did not telegram the entire region. I didn't use a script. I honestly don't even know what a script really is.

I just find it odd that scores of people mass telegram Francos Spains endorsers and no one has EVER recieved any type of warning for it, yet most of my nations get deleted if I do it to a fairly popular NationStates player.

It's also weird that while you punished me, you called The twoslit experiment a "reasonable guy." You're talking about the guy who took game-play personal and flamed my marriage, not to mention the fact that he's posted a pretty clear death threat to Francos Spain in the North Pacifics World Factbook Entry, which, by the way, has been up for a few weeks now.....

These quotes were taken from this thread:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=120430

thanks for the copy. actually i don't reside in the north pac and didn't have a puppet there.

There is a big difference between sending a few political telegrams and spamming you realise. You can't go sending telegrams to every single person who endorses someone in a region the size of the North Pacific. Most of these people won't want telegrams from some stranger telling them to stop endorsing someone. It's OK with smaller regions where everyone knows everyone else but otherwise it's spam.

And now this is set clear, and everyone knows the newly-explained rule. So next time someone breaks it, you can start punishing him. But you can't just delete people before you explained the rules about the matter to them!!

We're discussing it.

And now this is set clear, and everyone knows the newly-explained rule. So next time someone breaks it, you can start punishing him. But you can't just delete people before you explained the rules about the matter to them!!
Spamming has always been disallowed. Just because we say "all right, go ahead, you can send political telegrams" doesn't mean "oh, by all means, spam to your heart's content."

Like Cogitation likes to say, "think about it for a moment."

And now this is set clear, and everyone knows the newly-explained rule. So next time someone breaks it, you can start punishing him. But you can't just delete people before you explained the rules about the matter to them!!
Spamming has always been disallowed. Just because we say "all right, go ahead, you can send political telegrams" doesn't mean "oh, by all means, spam to your heart's content."

Like Cogitation likes to say, "think about it for a moment."

Right, spamming has always been illegal, but I don't think what I did was spamming. I only sent one telegram per nation, I didn't flood their inboxes with telegrams. After all, I was working under the assumption that telegramming multiple nations was ok, so long as you only sent them one telegram each. I thought this because Neutered Sputniks said this about involving the last incident involving political telegrams:

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...

So basically, Neutered Sputniks knew that I sent out a large volume of telegrams, but that's not what he was concerned about. He was concerned about the content of the telegrams.

Another reason I thought my actions would be ok is the fact that I know that the feeder region delegates must send out large numbers of telegrams asking for endorsements, otherwise how would they get so many?

Not to even mention that I know several nations that have sent political telegrams to ALL of Francos Spains endorsers, all in the course of a few hours, and they never recieved any type of punishment....

This is why, when I telegram Francos' endorsers, I telegram only a few of them. Usually something like one per day, if that.

This is why, when I telegram Francos' endorsers, I telegram only a few of them. Usually something like one per day, if that.

Yeah, given this recent ruling, I guess that was a really good idea after all, eh Kandarin?

Still, I know of several people who just sent out telegrams in mass to all of his endorsers all at once basically...

then it was our duty to get them to stop. if you ddin't i see you as remiss. i have lectured my people at length about not breaking game rules, nor skating close.

Hey come on, it was very clear, and I read in quotes he posted, several times, that the amount of messages didn't matter, if he only sent one per nation.

You may not agree with that ruling, another mod defined, but it just isn't fair punishing him for this. He literally followed the rules defined by a mod very carefully.

I'm sure if this was a defender, or a mod-friend like Qaaolchoura or Ballotonia he would néver get deleted. This just isn't fair, he even asked for it, if what he was doing was legal. A mod confirmed it. Then discuss it with the other mods, and come to a conclusion about the ruling, but don't punish someone for it.

Neither Qaaolchoura nor Ballotonia have previous warnings (I think). If they did, and they spammed, they would be deleted. The offender (I can't remember the name) did and was thus deleted.

If you have no solid arguments left, then I suggest you drop it.

then it was our duty to get them to stop. if you ddin't i see you as remiss. i have lectured my people at length about not breaking game rules, nor skating close.

Since so many people were doing it, it was easy to assume that their actions must be legal.

What do you mean you see me as "remiss?"

My solid argument, obviously, was the approval of Neutered Sputniks. 'Amount doesn't matter, but only one per person'.

Why do I have to repeat this? You take some border info from my message and pass it off as my 'weak arguments'. And you ignore the real arguments I use. All you mods appear to do that, ignore the arguments and reply to details.

But I won't ruin El Sabah Nur's chances by having a fight with the mods...

I moved this post from the thread I had originally started, so people can have a better understanding of the whole situation, without having to read more than one thread. The thread I took this post from is located here:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=120702


All the quotes in this post were taken from pages 1, 3, and 4 of this thread:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=112789&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

A few weeks back, I sent political telegrams to LadyRebels endorsers that contained information about LadyRebels that wasn't exactly true. I know it was wrong and kinda evil of me, but I was in a heated campaign with her for the South Pacific delegacy, and I guess I let my lust for power get way out of hand.

Shortly after sending out these telegrams, one of the moderators posted the name of my puppet who had been sending out the political telegrams on the South Pacific Civil HQ. I was shocked that the moderators would seemingly interfere in gameplay, so I started the thread posted above.

In the thread, Neutered Sputniks seems to tell me that my nation was basically ratted out because I had mass TG spammed the region:

mass TG spamming of this region.

Shortly after this, he appears to change his mind and say I was warned because the telegrams I sent out were defamatory towards LadyRebels:

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...

These next quotes appear to say that only defamatory political telegrams are illegal:

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

And your telegrams contained offensive/defammatory/malicious libel?

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.

Now for the past week or so, The twoslit experiment has been leading a crusade against the delegate of the Pacific, Francos Spain. The twoslit experiment charged Francos Spain with being undemocratic, and a dictator. These allegations annoyed me, as I knew that The twoslit experiment had recently ejected two nations because they both had accrued enough endorsements to challenge him for the North Pacific delegacy. By my own estimation, he was being hypocritical.

I then decided to send political telegrams to The twoslit experiments endorsers, so they would know about his political ejections. Here is a copy of the telegram I sent out:

"Hello North Pacific neighbor! I've telegrammed you because I have grown concerned over the actions of our delegate, The twoslit experiment.

Recently, The twoslit experiment ejected two nations, Nootroughsis and Domocolees, simply because they had a lot of endorsements and were challenging him for the delegates seat. These actions do not seem very democratic to me.

In fact, the only nations that The twoslit experiment deems worthy of challenging him for the delegate seat are his hand-picked best friends.

These very undemocratic actions have caused me to unendorse him, as I would like to have a truly democratic delegate who would let anyone challenge him/her for the delegates seat.

Please consider removing your endorsement from our current delegate, The twoslit experiment, for a truly free and democratic North Pacific. Thank you for your time."

Now, in my own estimation, I had not said anything defamatory in this telegram because The twoslit experiment DID eject two nations because they both had enough endorsements to challenge him for the North Pacific delegacy. After all, it was Neutered Sputniks who said this:

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.

After sending out the political telegrams to The twoslit experiments endorsers, I wanted to make absolutely sure that my actions were legal, so I started this thread:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=120418

In this thread, the moderator, Sirocco, basically tells me that my actions were legal, just as long as the telegrams aren't aimed at the person behind the nation:

Many thanks, Sirocco. You can lock this thread if you so wish....
I'd like to see this topic remain open and a few more mods weigh in. King Siroc had most of it right, but this line ...
"He's a region crasher who only cares about power."
... is opinion, not fact. He may be a proven region crasher, but his motivation may be interpreted entirely differently depending on which side of the argument he represents. I think this ruling opens the door wide for abuse.

signed,
Frisbeeteria (a player who is more interested in keeping the game fun for its own sake than getting involved in regional conspiracies and takeovers)

That's what makes it political Frisbeeteria. :wink: I should have elaborated on that. Politicians use these kind of comments all the time; the motivation is often twisted around in any case. Giving misleading motives of opponents has been around ever since two cavemen decided to have a democratic election. As long as the comments aren't personal, it's fine.

For example:

He's a region crasher who only cares about power

This is OK, there's nothing to get offended at here; it's politics. People can testify against being power-mad if they wish or they can go along with it. Who knows? It may be the true reason.

He's a prat.

Not OK, this is a personal remark.

The men in his country live under fear of their oppressors!!

This is OK. Better than OK really as it has an RP element.

Don't endorse him! He ejected me because I'm gay/liberal/red-haired!
Not OK. Even if it's true, it's not a good idea to introduce personal disputes to your argument. Keep things strictly IC.

Don't endorse him! He ejected me because my country's people are gay/liberal/red-haired!

This is semi-OK. You should only use things as controversial as this if you can back it up.

Any questions?

Satisified that my actions were legal, I stopped worrying about it. But then earlier today, my two oldest nations were deleted by the moderator, Scolopendra:

Actually...

You were warned on 8 January 2004 for telegram spamming with puppets.

Goodbye.

--Scolo

I'm not sure how my actions could be deemed as "spamming" when I only sent one telegram to each nation. This quote from Sirocco seems to support my view:

When sending political telegrams (i.e. telling someone not to endorse someone because [whatever])

1. Make sure what you're posting doesn't break the rules in the ToS or the Etiquette section of the FAQ.
2. Only send one telegram unless the recipient replies with queries.
3. Any usings of 'true things' should be strictly NS related and have nothing to do with real life. This means that you may use things like "He's a region crasher who only cares about power." but not things like "He's a fan of Gary Glitter" and suchlike.
4. If someone doesn't want you telegramming them, then don't.

There may be other things, but that's what I'd work on.

I would just like to know why the moderators are seemingly flip-flopping on the issue of what's legal and illegal regarding political telegrams? Why were my two oldest nations deleted when my telegram was not aimed at the person behind The twoslit experiment and were not defamatory?

Does anyone else just wish that Nur would shut his cake-hole for once and for all. I've never heard anyone over the age of 5 complain so much. Just accept your punishment and take it like a man. You get what you deserve.

Does anyone else just wish that Nur would shut his cake-hole for once and for all. I've never heard anyone over the age of 5 complain so much.

Well you're entitled to you opinion, Creeping Death, but what's with all this hostility towards me? Have I ever even had any kind of communication with you?

You get what you deserve. Just accept your punishment and take it like a man.

Well I think I've made a pretty clear case that I did not deserve a punishment for my actions.

Neither Qaaolchoura nor Ballotonia have previous warnings (I think).

Actually, I once did get a warning for having a flag which was deemed too big.

Ballotonia

then it was our duty to get them to stop. if you ddin't i see you as remiss. i have lectured my people at length about not breaking game rules, nor skating close.

Since so many people were doing it, it was easy to assume that their actions must be legal.

What do you mean you see me as "remiss?"

it was your duty as a leader to know the rules of the game. if your actions brought shame upon your army then it is your shame, not thiers. besides, if you knew enough to jump about at update time to save your endorsements in the sp, surely you knew enough about spam laws?

remiss:
\Re*miss"\ (r?-m?s"), a. [L. remissus, p. p. of remittere to send back, relax. See Remit.] Not energetic or exact in duty or business; not careful or prompt in fulfilling engagements; negligent; careless; tardy; behindhand; lagging; slack; hence, lacking earnestness or activity; languid; slow.


\Re*miss"\, n. The act of being remiss; inefficiency; failure. [Obs.] ``Remisses of laws.'' --Puttenham.

There is a big difference between sending a few political telegrams and spamming you realise. You can't go sending telegrams to every single person who endorses someone in a region the size of the North Pacific. Most of these people won't want telegrams from some stranger telling them to stop endorsing someone. It's OK with smaller regions where everyone knows everyone else but otherwise it's spam.

I am not sure where this comes from, as I distincly remeber n that contact supporters of regions is absolutely allowed, and is a game dynamic that she found to be purely poltical. There was no disticintion of how large the region is, nor should there be. One telegram per person, is one telegram per person.

This introduction of the "no large regions" would be new to how the rules have been outlined thus far, and to me don't make any sense.

[quote=Bistmath]then it was our duty to get them to stop. if you ddin't i see you as remiss. i have lectured my people at length about not breaking game rules, nor skating close.

Since so many people were doing it, it was easy to assume that their actions must be legal.

What do you mean you see me as "remiss?"

it was your duty as a leader to know the rules of the game. if your actions brought shame upon your army then it is your shame, not thiers. besides, if you knew enough to jump about at update time to save your endorsements in the sp, surely you knew enough about spam laws?


I miss a lot, but I do try to stay as up to date on the rules as possible—a hobby of mine. At what point in time did the issue come to how many telegrams were sent to one person? As I have read to this point, there have never been a limit as long as they were 1 per person and hand sent (not scripted).

then it was our duty to get them to stop. if you ddin't i see you as remiss. i have lectured my people at length about not breaking game rules, nor skating close.

Since so many people were doing it, it was easy to assume that their actions must be legal.

What do you mean you see me as "remiss?"

it was your duty as a leader to know the rules of the game. if your actions brought shame upon your army then it is your shame, not thiers. besides, if you knew enough to jump about at update time to save your endorsements in the sp, surely you knew enough about spam laws?

remiss:
\Re*miss"\ (r?-m?s"), a. [L. remissus, p. p. of remittere to send back, relax. See Remit.] Not energetic or exact in duty or business; not careful or prompt in fulfilling engagements; negligent; careless; tardy; behindhand; lagging; slack; hence, lacking earnestness or activity; languid; slow.


\Re*miss"\, n. The act of being remiss; inefficiency; failure. [Obs.] ``Remisses of laws.'' --Puttenham.

Ahhh, well thanks for the definition, Bistmath. I should have just looked it up on Google.com like you did.

As far as being remiss in my duties, there was no ruling on sending out political telegrams at the time, so therefore I could not have known about a rule that did not yet exist.

This goes against every fiber of my being, but..............bump.

I miss a lot, but I do try to stay as up to date on the rules as possible—a hobby of mine. At what point in time did the issue come to how many telegrams were sent to one person? As I have read to this point, there have never been a limit as long as they were 1 per person and hand sent (not scripted).

good question. :oops: i am trying to remember. (bah the ackbar! :P ) but it does seem rather spammy to me, sending out a tg to each person on a list.
when we figured out that francos was giving promotion to those who turned in spies. i had thought of sending notes out to all his supporters. but i didn't. instead, i made a lot of puppets and started turning those in. :lol: seemed a good way to stay on the side of legal.

as a leader i wouldn't want my people to hit a grey area too easy to lose good troops. if he knew the area was grey, it was his duty to keep his people away from it, or to seek moderator confirmation privately. (as i had done in the case of my puppets. poor salusa...)

OK, that's the point of this thread. Seeking moderator confirmation for an uncertain action. I actually spoke to Neut privately, who assured me that sending out one telegrams to endorsers stating "so-and-so is a bad leader" was legal.

but it does seem rather spammy to me, sending out a tg to each person on a list.

Just because something seems a certain way, does not make it so. Especially when Neutered Sputniks said it was ok to send out political telegrams, as long as it's one telegram per nation.

when we figured out that francos was giving promotion to those who turned in spies. i had thought of sending notes out to all his supporters. but i didn't. instead, i made a lot of puppets and started turning those in. :lol: seemed a good way to stay on the side of legal.

So you made a whole bunch of puppets to spam up the Pacific Civil HQ? Yeah, that sounds legal to me. :roll:

as a leader i wouldn't want my people to hit a grey area too easy to lose good troops. if he knew the area was grey, it was his duty to keep his people away from it

I don't think it was too gray of an area, considering that so many people were doing it. Oh, and it wasn't just "my people." In fact, it was mostly people from other organizations.

but it does seem rather spammy to me, sending out a tg to each person on a list.

Just because something seems a certain way, does not make it so. Especially when Neutered Sputniks said it was ok to send out political telegrams, as long as it's one telegram per nation.


but as i have stated previously, if you were at all uncertain it was up to you to check it out with the mods. you did not do that and are reaping the rewards of your actions. suck it up.

when we figured out that francos was giving promotion to those who turned in spies. i had thought of sending notes out to all his supporters. but i didn't. instead, i made a lot of puppets and started turning those in. :lol: seemed a good way to stay on the side of legal.

So you made a whole bunch of puppets to spam up the Pacific Civil HQ? Yeah, that sounds legal to me. :roll:
[/quote]
actually, if you would care to re read my note. i said that i spammed myself. meaning i wrote myself notes and turned in the 'spies' didn't bother with writing others. and of course, before i started i privately wrote a mod and asked about the legality of sending spammy notes to myself.

as a leader i wouldn't want my people to hit a grey area too easy to lose good troops. if he knew the area was grey, it was his duty to keep his people away from it

I don't think it was too gray of an area, considering that so many people were doing it. Oh, and it wasn't just "my people." In fact, it was mostly people from other organizations.[/quote]

so just beacuse everyone else was doing it, that made it legal? :roll: i don't accept that arguement from kids at school, either. how many people did that? do you have numbers? i would like to see them. as i have stated my people did not.

And now this is set clear, and everyone knows the newly-explained rule. So next time someone breaks it, you can start punishing him. But you can't just delete people before you explained the rules about the matter to them!!
Spamming has always been disallowed. Just because we say "all right, go ahead, you can send political telegrams" doesn't mean "oh, by all means, spam to your heart's content."

Like Cogitation likes to say, "think about it for a moment."

Right, spamming has always been illegal, but I don't think what I did was spamming. I only sent one telegram per nation, I didn't flood their inboxes with telegrams. After all, I was working under the assumption that telegramming multiple nations was ok, so long as you only sent them one telegram each. I thought this because Neutered Sputniks said this about involving the last incident involving political telegrams:

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...

So basically, Neutered Sputniks knew that I sent out a large volume of telegrams, but that's not what he was concerned about. He was concerned about the content of the telegrams.

Another reason I thought my actions would be ok is the fact that I know that the feeder region delegates must send out large numbers of telegrams asking for endorsements, otherwise how would they get so many?

Not to even mention that I know several nations that have sent political telegrams to ALL of Francos Spains endorsers, all in the course of a few hours, and they never recieved any type of punishment....

Hello, what I do in the telegrams is hold out a hand of friendship, invite them to the off site forums and if they have any questions about the game and such I try to find the answer for them, so um, I don't know if that would be considered spamming, considering that I try to help new Nations understand the Rules of NS a little better, rather than them hitting the getting help page with every question that they might have. So keep your dirty tactics to where they belong, with you, not with me. I do hope that you or one of your supporters are not the ones sending out the telegrams now, I have been hearing about new ones going around.

Respectfully,
The Queen of LadyRebels
Currently the Delegate of the South Pacific Region
By Grace of the South Pacific Nations

lr if you've got copies of those, i'd like to see em for my records.

but as i have stated previously, if you were at all uncertain it was up to you to check it out with the mods. you did not do that and are reaping the rewards of your actions. suck it up.

.................... :shock: ....................

A question regarding political telegrams.

Yes, I was just wondering, is it legal to send out political telegrams, such as asking nations to unendorse a delegate, and presenting your case for why they should unendorse said delegate in the telegram?

I've always assumed that it's legal, as nations send political telegrams to Francos Spains endorsers frequently, and I've never heard about any of them getting in trouble for it.

Also, I know it's illegal to lie and say defammatory things about the target nation, but what if the true actions of the nation in question are defammatory in and of themselves? I couldn't get in trouble just for spreading the truth about the nation, could I?

That's the title and first post of this thread, Bistmath. Did you not read the entire thread (and title of the thread, for that matter) before you made that comment?

actually, if you would care to re read my note. i said that i spammed myself. meaning i wrote myself notes and turned in the 'spies' didn't bother with writing others. and of course, before i started i privately wrote a mod and asked about the legality of sending spammy notes to myself.

I have to admit, I have no clue as to what you're talking about here. I'm sorry.

lr if you've got copies of those, i'd like to see em for my records.

I believe LadyRebels is referring to the political telegrams I sent to The twoslit experiments endorsers. I'm pretty sure you have a copy for your "records" already, Bistmath. If not, I'd be more than happy to telegram you a copy, if you so desire.

I'd like a clarification here before I ramp up the rhetoric - {so to speak while smiling}.

In a small region - I would be allowed to send a telegram to each delegate that gave an endorsement to the head of the region explaining that I would be a better candidate than the current guy.

That's not spamming since I only send one copy to each person.

In a large region, I would not be allowed to send a telegram to each delegate that gave an endorsement to the head of the region explaining that I would be a better candidate than the current guy.

Because that's spamming?

For both the intent is the same - contact the sponsers and get them to switch votes.

So are we involved in a form of protectionism here for large regions?

Or is there a part of this story I'm missing?

I'd like a clarification here before I ramp up the rhetoric - {so to speak while smiling}.

In a small region - I would be allowed to send a telegram to each delegate that gave an endorsement to the head of the region explaining that I would be a better candidate than the current guy.

That's not spamming since I only send one copy to each person.

In a large region, I would not be allowed to send a telegram to each delegate that gave an endorsement to the head of the region explaining that I would be a better candidate than the current guy.

Because that's spamming?

For both the intent is the same - contact the sponsers and get them to switch votes.

So are we involved in a form of protectionism here for large regions?

Or is there a part of this story I'm missing?

Oops, My puppet posted instead of me.

//shoots a couple crickets

You make a good point Lem, and I have to agree with you.

Sending one initial message to each UN member of a region concerning one's attempt to gain endorsements is not illegal - follow-ups are only allowed if the original recipient responds in a questioning manner.

You make a good point Lem, and I have to agree with you.

Sending one initial message to each UN member of a region concerning one's attempt to gain endorsements is not illegal - follow-ups are only allowed if the original recipient responds in a questioning manner.

//Gapes

What the?

//staggers

Holy smok

//hyperventilates

MEDIC!

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

Just teasing.

Why was this origional question a problem then?

Thanks for the clarification, and thanks to Lemming for posting again (I hate it when he/she is resaonable, goes against my opinion of him/her completely :twisted: ).

This is how I understood the rules, so I am glad that I was not completely off.

Not to call him out, but I would assume that this issue simply wasn’t clear to Sirocco:

There is a big difference between sending a few political telegrams and spamming you realise. You can't go sending telegrams to every single person who endorses someone in a region the size of the North Pacific. Most of these people won't want telegrams from some stranger telling them to stop endorsing someone. It's OK with smaller regions where everyone knows everyone else but otherwise it's spam.

I do hope it doesn’t count against me (that would almost imply there was a positive to count against :wink: ) to post that, just trying to make sure we all understand the rules, and are on the same page.

So, does that mean, Mouth of El Sabah Nur, that you now understand the rules and you were in the wrong, or that there was a confusion when you were punished and it is all now clear?

So, does that mean, Mouth of El Sabah Nur, that you now understand the rules and you were in the wrong, or that there was a confusion when you were punished and it is all now clear?

Well from what Neutered Sputniks just posted, he seems to be saying that what I did wasn't illegal:

You make a good point Lem, and I have to agree with you.

Sending one initial message to each UN member of a region concerning one's attempt to gain endorsements is not illegal - follow-ups are only allowed if the original recipient responds in a questioning manner.

So the next question is, will my nations get resurrected?

you know technically it might have been.

you sent one message to each nation when you endorsed them. then you sent another to tell them to stop, didn't you?

Hey Ackbar - nice to read you again.

BTW - I'm most assuredly an Alpha Male Sable Lemming. (Helps in my fascist Dictatrships ways that i'm also brutally Handsome).


Again I wonder about the intent/spam bit.

If I messaged all my countries with a message, I would not be allowed to message those countries if I were in error unless they contacted me back?

Spam to me would be unrelenting messages that have little or nothing to do with me. Like all those "Hey join my regions" I get.

OTOP (on the other paw) Messages about regime change that are on topic and not repetative would show intent.

So the way I would treat spam is - Is the second message substantially the same as the first message? If so, then that would be spam. Of the second message carries a different message than the first - then the intent of the message should be looked at and a great chance of it not being considered spam.

you know technically it might have been.

you sent one message to each nation when you endorsed them. then you sent another to tell them to stop, didn't you?

We're talking about political telegrams where I asked nations to stop endorsing their current delegate, and no, I only sent one telegram per nation.

Really?


I seem to recall that you used a similar tactic with a different puppet not that long ago.

Really?


I seem to recall that you used a similar tactic with a different puppet not that long ago.

Yes, but I only sent one telegram to each nation. That was in the South Pacific too, so it's not like I sent those telegrams to the same nations as this most recent time.

Really?


I seem to recall that you used a similar tactic with a different puppet not that long ago.

Yes, but I only sent one telegram to each nation. That was in the South Pacific too, so it's not like I sent those telegrams to the same nations as this most recent time.

but you had already sent them a tg when you endorsed them (that's one) and then another one telling them to unendorse lr (that's two) if they had not responded to your first telegram, then it's spam.

look at this and think about it:

Sending one initial message to each UN member of a region concerning one's attempt to gain endorsements is not illegal - follow-ups are only allowed if the original recipient responds in a questioning manner.

but you had already sent them a tg when you endorsed them (that's one) and then another one telling them to unendorse lr (that's two) if they had not responded to your first telegram, then it's spam.

look at this and think about it:

Sending one initial message to each UN member of a region concerning one's attempt to gain endorsements is not illegal - follow-ups are only allowed if the original recipient responds in a questioning manner.

Ahhh yes, but you can't hardly call that spam when both telegrams are on two entirely different subjects. One telegram is asking a nation to endorse me. Endorsement telegrams surely must be legal, as pretty much every delegate in NationStates sends them out. The other telegram was asking nations to unendorse their current delegate, and Neutered Sputniks has already said telegrams of that nature are legal.

So what do you get when you add one legal action to another legal action? Is that breaking the rules? I think not...

Bistmath, this thread is in regards to events involving the North Pacific, not the South Pacific. Why are you bringing up unrelated subjects? Please cease your witchhunt.

Really?


I seem to recall that you used a similar tactic with a different puppet not that long ago.

Ahhh, so it's not that what he did was wrong, but rather a way to punish him.

Now it starts to make sense.

Really?


I seem to recall that you used a similar tactic with a different puppet not that long ago.

Ahhh, so it's not that what he did was wrong, but rather a way to punish him.

Now it starts to make sense.

Punish me for what? I don't see what rule I broke...

But if I send two telegrams concerning the same subject to the same nation, I become a spammer - which is what you did.

Is anyone else surprised that no mention was made of his previous warnings/telegrams?

Suggestion: When someone spams me, I just place them on my ignore list. This seems like the best solution for the problem. Generally, the spammers are the same bunch, although a new puppet creeps in once in a while. I thought the point of having this option was to reduce spam. Seems like we're all making a mountain out of a molehill here to me.

But if I send two telegrams concerning the same subject to the same nation, I become a spammer - which is what you did.

Is anyone else surprised that no mention was made of his previous warnings/telegrams?

When did I do that?? I sent ONE telegram to each of The twoslit experiments endorsers. One telegram and one telegram only...

Bump....yet again. I do hate bumping.....

It would appear that this thread has been referenced, and once again, comments from the Moderators taken out of context. I suggest any person wondering about spam rules re-read this thread, paying particular attention to the posts made by Lem and myself clarifying what is and isnt spam.

In effect, Scolo, Sirocco, and myself were all correct. You cannot simply telegram an entire region with politically motivated telegrams. You are, however, entitled to political campaigning. Ultimately, sending a carbon copy of a telegram to a mass number of people is spam, as is sending multiple telegrams to the same nations concerning politics.

To those of you who feel the need to be 'smart' and ask how many is a 'mass number,' let me explain it this way: if you need to ask, you're probably already pushing the line, and I'd suggest that no one push this issue any further.

I thought it only fair to bring to light the recent revelation (to me at least) that if a date is included for an invasion, it is not spam to send pre-designed to TMs to all members of a region as long as they only recieve one TM. No date, spam. Date, not so much spam.