NationStates Jolt Archive

No invasion has taken place in any of the feeder regions, recently. Thus, the invasion rules don't apply and the Delegates of those regions may permanently ban whomever they wish. They simply can't ban a large number of natives as that would be griefing (and not even Francos Spain has banned enough nations to come even close to being a griefer). *source* (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=128961&highlight=).


I didnt want to hijack Sir Robert Peels thread, and I think this deserves a thread of its own anyway.

Does the above quote from Cog mean that any invasion in the feeder regions is subject to the rules constraining invaders? Specifically this rule as the others dont really have an application.

To avoid running afoul of the Mod Squad, Invader Delegates should limit themselves to ejecting ONLY those natives who are a direct threat to the Invader Delegate's position. Also remember that any ejected natives must be removed from the banlist instantly. *source* (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=109397&highlight=)
Obviously I'm really talking about The Pacific here.
If, ever, the various people who want Franco deposed, actually ever accheive their aims, they wont be able to ban Franco and co or set themselves up as a legitimate government. If they are restricted to ejecting nations in direct contention for the delegacy they wont be able to "clean" the region in the manner Franco does, or eject spammers etc?

This has been subject of quite a lot of discussion already, especially by the mods, as I asked a very similar question a few months ago.

After going back and forth a couple of times with at one point even elaborate special rulings for invasions, in the end the simple answer (given on November 6) was that in the case of an invasion taking over The Pacific, permanently banning the leadership of The Pacific would not constitute griefing.

I haven't heard anything otherwise since.

Whether the ruling provided to me is based on something specific to The Pacific, or applies generally to all Pacifics is unknown to me.

Ballotonia

Interesting, I hadn't seen that thread. If you have the thread bookmarked, Id be interested in reading it. Dont bother searching for it, its just idle curiosity.

If thats the case, Id be curious to know how the mods justify differentiating between the Pacific and the other feeders, and if such a deifferentiation was a mistake (ie, the ruleing applies to all feeders) how do they justify the differentiating between the feeders and other regions?
After all, the invasion rules are primarily aimed at protecting founderless regions, and thats essentially what the feeders are albeit a lot larger.

Not accusing here or anything, incase any one gets that impression, just curious.

The last major ruling I had heard was that the Pacifics and RR had No Natives, only Residents*.
And as there is no Password ability on them just ignore that part.
However spamming the recent happenings thing is considered a big offence, I have seen deletions for that.

Here is Loops General Rule of Thumb for Invasion.
"If you think it could be considered Griefing and have to ask, then it Probably is so don't do it."



*I believe it was Neut who ruled it dont quote me on it.
=-=-=
Loop
My current flag
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/1_infinite_loop.jpg

If you crashed the pacific and deposed Francos, no one would really care what you did. If you tossed out "any threats" which is legal, then you could toss out Franco's whole regime.

*I just can't wait till it happens...*

And to loop, I love all those flags you got. You and Lady Rebels...

This has been subject of quite a lot of discussion already, especially by the mods, as I asked a very similar question a few months ago.

After going back and forth a couple of times with at one point even elaborate special rulings for invasions, in the end the simple answer (given on November 6) was that in the case of an invasion taking over The Pacific, permanently banning the leadership of The Pacific would not constitute griefing.

I haven't heard anything otherwise since.

Whether the ruling provided to me is based on something specific to The Pacific, or applies generally to all Pacifics is unknown to me.

Ballotonia

Close. However, due to the length of time, and the still large number of supporters, Francos's status as native of The Pacific, an invasion would be just that - an invasion. Remember, a new delegate can gain native status by achieving enough endorsements from natives to outnumber the endorsements recieved by the former native delegate.

And to loop, I love all those flags you got. You and Lady Rebels...

^-^

hehe.

I never get tired of them. Mine is always the same, but pretty cool nonetheless.

http://www.temporaldoorway.com/gallery/poster/galtsgulch.jpg

It's a pic of Galt's Gulch. The famed valley of John Galt in the book Atlas Shrugged, you should read it.

hehe.

I never get tired of them. Mine is always the same, but pretty cool nonetheless.

http://www.temporaldoorway.com/gallery/poster/galtsgulch.jpg

It's a pic of Galt's Gulch. The famed valley of John Galt in the book Atlas Shrugged, you should read it.
I may very well do so.

Close. However, due to the length of time, and the still large number of supporters, Francos's status as native of The Pacific, an invasion would be just that - an invasion. Remember, a new delegate can gain native status by achieving enough endorsements from natives to outnumber the endorsements recieved by the former native delegate.

Ok, so... that ruling given previously no longer applies, and only the standard invasion rules apply?

Either way is fine with me, just making sure I've understood you correctly.

(btw, considering the likelihood of an invasion of 400+ nations, I'm regarding this as a purely theoretical excercise.. ;) )

Ballotonia

Oh its theoretical for me. Even if I had the neccecary support to do something like that, I like Francos style, Id be more likely to hit a different feeder.

But, theoretically, in the event of an outside taqkeover, the new delegate could not eject and ban Fraco or any other nation until such a time that they had more endorsements from invaders than not.

I think I have it right . . .

It seems to me, what to do after taking over FS is skipping over one rather huge step, taking over Francos.

Not saying this isn't good to know, just mentioning the elephant in the room.

It seems to me, what to do after taking over FS is skipping over one rather huge step, taking over Francos.

Not saying this isn't good to know, just mentioning the elephant in the room.
Yeah, but at this stage, everyone who cares, knows exactly how to get Franco out, its the implementation that they fall down on.
Anyway, my idle curiosity is sated now so . .

What I'm saying is that if you want to oust Francos and it count as an internal coup, then the internal support has to be there. Invader groups are free to assist in internal coups, but the native support for the coup must materialize, or it remains an invasion - albeit with native help or not.