NationStates Jolt Archive

First, a disclaimer. This isn't something I'm planning or anything, I'm just curious.

Imagine a small region where all members are active. The region has a founder. All the nations apart from the founder hatch a plan. They elect a delegate, and eject the founder. Then all of them leave without being ejected. The region is empty, so it dies at the update (the founder didn't come online so didn't notice. They refound (hawk) the region, and move back in.

2 questions:

1) Is this possible?
2) Is this illegal?

Well, it's certainly possible.

As for legal... that's an interesting question...

I thought that ejecting natives, in order to refound the the region, was illegal. Founder = native :P

I don't know about legal but it would suck for the founder :o

I don't know about legal but it would suck for the founder :o
Whoa. Now that would be a coup and a half. They would have to really hate the Founder in order to try that . . . :o

I thought that ejecting natives, in order to refound the the region, was illegal. Founder = native :PYes, but ejecting just one person is generally allowed.

I don't know about legal but it would suck for the founder :o
Whoa. Now that would be a coup and a half. They would have to really hate the Founder in order to try that . . . :oWell, imagine if the founder isn't so active. They could just be looking to control their region better (even though the founder doesn't want to)

It sounds legal doesn't it, I'm interested to know what the response to this will finally be.

It sounds legal doesn't it, I'm interested to know what the response to this will finally be.It does almost sound legal, although, under Neut's rules ("play nice"), its probably not.

The question is, does the founder have control of his region to a greater extent than his own powers?

In my opinion, I'd have this illegal - I can just imagine the horror of nations logging on to find their region's been nicked from right under their nose...

In my opinion, I'd have this illegal - I can just imagine the horror of nations logging on to find their region's been nicked from right under their nose...Most delegates aren't thrilled by being invaded either though, and thats legal.

I guess so, but it's not exactly the same. I guess we'll just wait until this happens one day and decide what to do then.

I guess so, but it's not exactly the same. I guess we'll just wait until this happens one day and decide what to do then.Hmm

*weighs finding out the answer against possibility of being deleted*

(not seriously, but I do think this is an interesting question)

Just me $.02.

Wouldn't that be considered as ejecting all natives?

no, only the founder is ejected, all other nations leave on their own and one of them refoundes the region.

Just me $.02.

Wouldn't that be considered as ejecting all natives?I certainly wouldn't think so.

on this same subject, what if a region with only one nation, no founder, therefore one native, is invaded, then that nation is ejected, and the region is alowed to die, but then is recreated, with a new founder?

on this same subject, what if a region with only one nation, no founder, therefore one native, is invaded, then that nation is ejected, and the region is alowed to die, but then is recreated, with a new founder?I'm pretty sure thats not allowed.

I can't wait for the outcome to this question either.

on this same subject, what if a region with only one nation, no founder, therefore one native, is invaded, then that nation is ejected, and the region is alowed to die, but then is recreated, with a new founder?

That would be ejecting all the natives of the region, and thus a griefing invasion.

on this same subject, what if a region with only one nation, no founder, therefore one native, is invaded, then that nation is ejected, and the region is alowed to die, but then is recreated, with a new founder?

That would be ejecting all the natives of the region, and thus a griefing invasion.

what if that one nation dies off naturally from inactivity, can you recreate it then?

on this same subject, what if a region with only one nation, no founder, therefore one native, is invaded, then that nation is ejected, and the region is alowed to die, but then is recreated, with a new founder?That would be ejecting all the natives of the region, and thus a griefing invasion.what if that one nation dies off naturally from inactivity, can you recreate it then?

That's fine, just as if you weren't there and they idled out. Just don't kick them.

cool thanks

I guess so, but it's not exactly the same. I guess we'll just wait until this happens one day and decide what to do then.

It seems a bit unfair to me to punish a nation for violating a rule so borderline the mods can't make up their minds in advance... It has been suggested before that when in doubt on what is or is not legal to ask a mod. While this can be overdone (like repeatedly asking slightly different questions to get a clearly defined line where a grey area is purposely left in place) this isn't the case here. This is new, although I do remember something happening before that came really close.

There was a region where the founder had gone to another region and left a puppet in the region instead. The natives of the region conspired against the Founder (and yes, they really really hated the founder as he was not participating in regional affairs yet 'remote controlled' the region without ever listening to what the natives wanted) who was unaware the natives had access to regional controls through his absence from the region. This was shortly after this was implemented as a new feature. They booted the puppet and left in unison, then recreated the region. After a while this situation came to the mods attention, and the decision was to not intervene in the newly created situation. Time having passed may have played a role in that call though, as verification of who did what is always more difficult after time has passed.

In this case, to me, it was clear that these nations were genuine natives who simply wanted control over 'their' region back. They could've moved to another region too, but it had one of those special names that aren't easy to replace.

There's also the other possibility to keep into account: nations planted in a small region for the specific purpose of becoming natives and taking over the region after a sufficiently long while. This should IMHO still be illegal.

Telling the difference between these two can be a really major problem. One thing to reduce the possible problem is to implement the inability to ever eject the founder nation. That doesn't help against the example I gave, but if as Founder you do not deem the region worthy of your own presence, well, that says something too doesn't it? ;)

Ballotonia

I guess so, but it's not exactly the same. I guess we'll just wait until this happens one day and decide what to do then.

It seems a bit unfair to me to punish a nation for violating a rule so borderline the mods can't make up their minds in advance... It has been suggested before that when in doubt on what is or is not legal to ask a mod. While this can be overdone (like repeatedly asking slightly different questions to get a clearly defined line where a grey area is purposely left in place) this isn't the case here. This is new, although I do remember something happening before that came really close.

There was a region where the founder had gone to another region and left a puppet in the region instead. The natives of the region conspired against the Founder (and yes, they really really hated the founder as he was not participating in regional affairs yet 'remote controlled' the region without ever listening to what the natives wanted) who was unaware the natives had access to regional controls through his absence from the region. This was shortly after this was implemented as a new feature. They booted the puppet and left in unison, then recreated the region. After a while this situation came to the mods attention, and the decision was to not intervene in the newly created situation. Time having passed may have played a role in that call though, as verification of who did what is always more difficult after time has passed.

In this case, to me, it was clear that these nations were genuine natives who simply wanted control over 'their' region back. They could've moved to another region too, but it had one of those special names that aren't easy to replace.

There's also the other possibility to keep into account: nations planted in a small region for the specific purpose of becoming natives and taking over the region after a sufficiently long while. This should IMHO still be illegal.

Telling the difference between these two can be a really major problem. One thing to reduce the possible problem is to implement the inability to ever eject the founder nation. That doesn't help against the example I gave, but if as Founder you do not deem the region worthy of your own presence, well, that says something too doesn't it? ;)

BallotoniaAh, cool, it has happened.

The thing is, what actually is the difference between a nation which is native and one which stays long enough to be considered native? A nation which initially plans to take over my end up not doing so, so should they be denied native status? A long standing native may develop large ambitions, and they could end up taking over.

The thing is, what actually is the difference between a nation which is native and one which stays long enough to be considered native? A nation which initially plans to take over my end up not doing so, so should they be denied native status? A long standing native may develop large ambitions, and they could end up taking over.

That question is the same as asking for the definition of 'native'.

Ballotonia

Spoffin is this concerning your operation in China?

Surely, if the founder wants to remain in total control of a region s/he must
1) not leave the region (use a puppet for leaving purposes, if necessary)
2) not give the delegate banning powers?

If the founder chooses to do either of the above then he is choosing to relinquish control (possibly, although I think it is an awful thing to do to a founder) and invite "abuse", and the consequences are his own fault?

Spoffin is this concerning your operation in China?

Hypothetical Question

hy·po·thet·i·cal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hp-tht-kl) also hy·po·thet·ic (-thtk)
adj.
Of, relating to, or based on a hypothesis: a hypothetical situation. See Synonyms at theoretical.

Suppositional; uncertain. See Synonyms at supposed.
Conditional; contingent.

n.
A hypothetical circumstance, condition, scenario, or situation: OK, let's consider this possibility thenjust as a hypothetical.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[From Greek hupothetikos, from hupothetos, placed under, supposed, from hupotithenai, to suppose. See hypothesis.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hypo·theti·cal n.
hypo·theti·cal·ly adv.

And the delegate doesn't have regional control in China.

Do you want to explain how you figure it might be connected Atopia? Or was this just another random accusation, in which case shall I just skip everything else and file a harrassment report against you now?

Do you want to explain how you figure it might be connected Atopia? Or was this just another random accusation, in which case shall I just skip everything else and file a harrassment report against you now?

This sounds like random flamebaiting to me. Arnarchotopia appears to be asking a non-offensive question.

Would you care to point me to this earlier accusation that you imply was made by Arnarchotopia? You seem to have some preestablished context in mind that I don't know about.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

A few of facts:

You moved into China around the same time as posting this thread.

You've collected endorsements from Mercians who arrived within 48 hours of you.

The regional controls come back on once a founder expires.

I made the reasonable deduction based on the above that something was amiss with you in China.

Do you want to explain how you figure it might be connected Atopia? Or was this just another random accusation, in which case shall I just skip everything else and file a harrassment report against you now?

This sounds like random flamebaiting to me. Arnarchotopia appears to be asking a non-offensive question.

Would you care to point me to this earlier accusation that you imply was made by Arnarchotopia? You seem to have some preestablished context in mind that I don't know about.

--The Modified Democratic States of CogitationApologies Cogitation, I realise this may have seemed unprovoked. An explaination is in your TM box.