NationStates Jolt Archive

okay this didn't post the first time.
I swear to god i'm going to get kicked out of regional government for askign this but...

recently the SP, in conjunction with another region (unnamed because of possible troubles), have recently been investigating a trouble maker. he has nations in both our region and that of the other. The investigation has been conducted on both fronts and in concert.

the current suggestion is that we should ban his nations from both regions.

does this constitute griefing as outlined in the glossary?

I really would like a mod opinion, but would like others to chime in as well.

Is he a native of the regions?

currently he resides in the south pacific, in which there are no natives.

i blieve his nations in the other region (should they still exist) could be considered native.

If he has been violating your regional Rules then by all means boot him

i blieve his nations in the other region (should they still exist) could be considered native.

If his nations are considered native, they cannot be banned from either region, according to NS rules on griefing by an invader. However, if the founder ejects and bans them, he/she can do that to whoever they want to, whether it be invader or native, as per NS rules.

<--- not a moderator.

The South Pacific is a feeder region, and last I checked you can boot and ban anyone you like at all in the Feeders, a la Francos Spain. The other region would be more difficult though. If he just came in like that, not with a group of invaders or such, I would think it would be safe to boot him. But I might not be right.

Since there is currently no invader in control of The South Pacific, invasion rules do not apply. Hence, nations may be banned in the course of normal political on-goings (upto a large number, which is in the thousands for the SP).

As for this other region, without knowing the situation there (you did not mention it), it's not possible for me to tell whether or not the invasion rules apply. If they do not, the same applies as above. If they do, keep in mind these rules state that no native may be banned by invaders, so the question of nativity for these nations comes into consideration.

Ballotonia

If the founder of the other region Bitsy refers to boots the offending nation then there is nothing the offending nation can say.

also, there are NO Natives in the Pacifics, only residents, and you can, if you are delegate, evict anyone at any time for any reason.

I know the SP has a nice ruleset, if he is breaking those rules, then by all means show him the way to Kandarins House.

tag

Since there is currently no invader in control of The South Pacific, invasion rules do not apply. Hence, nations may be banned in the course of normal political on-goings (upto a large number, which is in the thousands for the SP).

As for this other region, without knowing the situation there (you did not mention it), it's not possible for me to tell whether or not the invasion rules apply. If they do not, the same applies as above. If they do, keep in mind these rules state that no native may be banned by invaders, so the question of nativity for these nations comes into consideration.

Ballotonia

Correct-a-mundo

this nation has done his best to create discord between the two regions. almost broke down ties between us. so the thought had occurred between our two govenments to punish him jointly. the first thought was to ban all his nations in both regions. i like the idea but worry this is griefing.

my guess is that he's trying stir things up between us for a third party.

from the glossary:
Griefing: Harrassing a nation because of what they did or said. Also see Region Griefing.

as i have stated, i like the idea of us all tossing his nations, but am worried the little so and so will come back with a valid griefing charge.

so i am looking for absolution.

Banning political opponents in a non-invaded region is hardly griefing.

lol i'll quote you on that...