NationStates Jolt Archive

Are moderators anti-invader?

A Moderator was consulted by an Invader before this Invasion because of cases where people had been thrown from the UN without any given reason, we made sure that everything we did was legal!!!

How come we are having nations ejected for no reason and founders who have been dead a long time coming back to the game???

Founders may come back when a region is unstable happened before will happen again. Happened in China you were there PFC you should know better. This is like baseball both sides complain about ref's in most cases they are fair it's just they are hurting both sides occasionally and both are mad. This is similar to the initial frusteration over Great .. getting back. Mod's are not as biased or wrong as people think.

Yes, but I do think we should revise some of the ground rules w/ defenders invaders, and MODS there.

indeed. the treatment of the invaders in japan today was incredible! some explanation is needed.

BAH! invaders. :mad:

How would you feel if someone said "Bah! Neutrals!" or "Bah! America!" or "Bah! Civil Rights!"???

How would you feel if someone said "Bah! Neutrals!" or "Bah! America!" or "Bah! Civil Rights!"???

Like I would feel any other time I'm allowed to speak to Ashcroft.

How would you feel if someone said "Bah! Neutrals!" or "Bah! America!" or "Bah! Civil Rights!"???
bah! american government!, i'd be fine with that :D

Yes, but I do think we should revise some of the ground rules w/ defenders invaders, and MODS there.

I agree. I know for fact that one of the mods is helping invaders to stay in power, at this very moment. We should put a stop on this. Mods should be neutral, and stay out of warfare! :mp5: :sniper: :headbang: :gundge: :rolleyes:

I agree. I know for fact that one of the mods is helping invaders to stay in power, at this very moment. My personal view is that if people are going to say stuff like this they should just specifiy what they're talking about. I don't think that passive-aggressive attacks are particuarly productive.

My personal view is that if people are going to say stuff like this they should just specifiy what they're talking about. I don't think that passive-aggressive attacks are particuarly productive.

So, you want to know which mod it is?

I know for fact that one of the mods is helping invaders to stay in power, at this very moment.

I assume you're trying to be sarcastic.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

So, you want to know which mod it is?


How about instead of sugar-coating the issue? You just give specific examples, proof, and the like so that everyone can make up their own minds instead of just being apathetic towards, "Oh, the mods are anti-invading," and that be the end of it.

So, you want to know which mod it is?Yes, with, as Tuesday Heights said, examples and proof. Without that it's just a campaign of innuendo.

We really do need a clear idea of the rules here.Also i would like a mod to post a reply to all our concerns(no one in sight yet).

Japan was a victory but i think some power hungry mod thought lets put in a founder now to p**S everyone off.

I would also like to put in a complaint against the new founder for griefing by ejecting large number of nations and throwing out a elected delegate.

I await the mods reply

thank you :mad:

Yes, with, as Tuesday Heights said, examples and proof. Without that it's just a campaign of innuendo.

Well, if the mod in question doesn't speak out, I think he wants to do his subversive work in secrecy. Who am I to tell tale, if he doesn't want to you to know. It is better that players don't know it, so moderators won't get harassed in the game, just because they are taking sides. I hope that besides being moderator, they are gamers too. And it would be better if people, like you and me, keep these two things separated. I am 100% sure that none of the mods is biased against invaders or defenders.

Japan was a victory but i think some power hungry mod thought lets put in a founder now to p**S everyone off.

And just what "power" would we obtain by taking a region?

Well, if the mod in question doesn't speak out, I think he wants to do his subversive work in secrecy. Who am I to tell tale, if he doesn't want to you to know. It is better that players don't know it, so moderators won't get harassed in the game, just because they are taking sides. I hope that besides being moderator, they are gamers too. And it would be better if people, like you and me, keep these two things separated. I am 100% sure that none of the mods is biased against invaders or defenders.But you initially said We should put a stop on this. Mods should be neutral, and stay out of warfare! That, to me at least, sounds like a definate implication that a mod is abusing their position.

I assume you're trying to be sarcastic.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

Well, I am not. I just dissagree on some of the rules. If a delegate position, which should have 400+ endorsements, gets taken over by a low life with only 125 endorsements, takes a regional forum, which holds over 800 members (NS players), out of the regional factbook, and ejects all long time residents out of the region, who worked very hard to make that place a happy home for newbies and long time players alike, I call that griefing. If I see that one of the players, who are backing it up, is a mod, I see a mod assisting a hostile take-over, intended to spoil the fun of many NS members. But that is the way I see it. Not the way the mods see it. But who am I, right?

I would also like to put in a complaint against the new founder for griefing by ejecting large number of nations and throwing out a elected delegate.



1) He's not a new founder. He founded the region before founders got the powers the have now. The mod merely fixed that.
2) How is it griefing to throw out those who tried to take the nation over? Stop bitching.
3) The "elected" delegate was only "elected" by your little team of multis, not our nation. The legitimate delegate, TRULY elected, is in place again.

But you initially said That, to me at least, sounds like a definate implication that a mod is abusing their position.

I was not serious on that one. Maybe a little bit to sarcastic, but I didn't meant to be.

Chess you are right, I should know better, but we were cheated out of Japan, the founder had his name there but it was dead.

Well seeing as I have no power in the game to abuse, your argument becomes rather null and void.
I've been in that region for a couple of weeks now and you know what I see? I see Great Bight being griefed by the very ones who claim he is the one doing the griefing.
Being a forum moderator doesn't mean I have to stop playing the game.

[/Quote]2) How is it griefing to throw out those who tried to take the nation over? Stop bitching.[/Quote]

Please lets keep this a civilized debate. We are not a bunch of children here, lets act like adults.

Back to being on topic. I would just like to know what rules were broken to have been treated like this.

Also, is anyone going to see my request to take a look at the rules of raider play?

2) How is it griefing to throw out those who tried to take the nation over? Stop bitching.[/Quote]

Please lets keep this a civilized debate. We are not a bunch of children here, lets act like adults.

Back to being on topic. I would just like to know what rules were broken to have been treated like this.

Also, is anyone going to see my request to take a look at the rules of raider play?[/QUOTE]


I would also like to know if the Raider rules are going to be reviewed, preferably with representatives of Raiders, Defenders and one or more Moderators present

Well seeing as I have no power in the game to abuse, your argument becomes rather null and void.
I've been in that region for a couple of weeks now and you know what I see? I see Great Bight being griefed by the very ones who claim he is the one doing the griefing.
Being a forum moderator doesn't mean I have to stop playing the game.

Since you are stepping forward, you got it onto yourself. If any of those players are griefing, how come they aren't deleted? According the rules, griefing is a deletable offence, or are you just stating your own opinion of griefing? The majority of nations in the region are not endorsing him, yet you think he is the rightful ruler of the region?
You obviously have no feelings whatsoever for all the people who worked very hard to make that region fun for every NS player. All you see that somebody(UPS) made a clever coup, by giving the region to a friend, though that friend doesn't have the suport of the majority. I think that he is abusing game rules, and you are backing him up.
I am just stating my opinion here, knowing that GB hasn't broken any rule whatsoever. In my opinion, he is just griefing a few hundred players, and nobody cares. If I was owner of this game, I would have taken his ejection powers away, and let all those newbies, who are just trying to learn the game, vote for who they want. Mind you, they are a very high percentage of the total players in this game. They deserve some respect. Or at least put their regional forum back in the factbook. It has been there for longer than a year now, and it deserves some respect. GB has done noting to gain respect. He got the region for free, from UPS, who made sure first that all dignitaries were out of the picture, and that none of the unsuspected newbies had more endorsements. They might be newbies, but they are not toys, who anybody can deal with any way they like. They haven't been griefed, according game rules. That is the reason why I don't agree with this part of the game rules.
Sowhere else are two nations ejected, and the rulebrakes are swiftly dealt with. In a pacific are long time natives ejected, and nothing happens. Completely according the rules. Mind you, those rules are made by moderators. Everybody knows that the factbook states that ejecting a large number of nations may get the moderators take action against you. No, as long as you do it slowly, and the region is a feeder region, you are completely free to do as you wish. The banlist will never get bigger than 200, so you can ban all all players. The fail-safety of the game makes sure that you will stay within the rules.
It is just like that little kids, who's mommy told him not to eat the cookies. Every day he will nible a bit off every cookie, and his mommy doesn't suspect a thing. At least the mommy will see it at a certain point, but NationStates moderators will never suspect a thing. They look at the cookiejar, count the cookies, and move on.
You are aiding GB in this, and that doesn't make it easy for all the people who want to do something about it. Everytime when one of them gets emotional, you have your nose on it, though you aren't even a gamemoderator.

Well, this is enough rant for one week. Look at my other posts: This one is the biggest of them all :p

The flagrant offenses I see usually result in deletions. I've seen offensive puppets created to harrass and flame Great Bight. Rest assured these puppets are swiftly deleted and their puppetmasters warned. The same would go for any of Bight's supporters if they were harassing the other side.
Great Bight became delegate legitimately. His endorsers were all from within the North Pacific, there was no invasion. As such, Great Bight can reasonably be considered a native delegate with all the privaleges that are afforded to them. If he chooses to use his ejection powers to remove political opponents or well, whoever he likes, this is legitimate. Until such time as Great Bight goes completely nuts and ejects all the UN members or something á la the National Stalinist griefing of The East Pacific, he is within the rules.

Can we please get back on topic?

The flagrant offenses I see usually result in deletions. I've seen offensive puppets created to harrass and flame Great Bight. Rest assured these puppets are swiftly deleted and their puppetmasters warned. The same would go for any of Bight's supporters if they were harassing the other side.
Great Bight became delegate legitimately. His endorsers were all from within the North Pacific, there was no invasion. As such, Great Bight can reasonably be considered a native delegate with all the privaleges that are afforded to them. If he chooses to use his ejection powers to remove political opponents or well, whoever he likes, this is legitimate. Until such time as Great Bight goes completely nuts and ejects all the UN members or something á la the National Stalinist griefing of The East Pacific, he is within the rules.

Just like I say. The rules sux.

Can we please get back on topic?


And what was the topic? I am talking to a moderator who is on the side of a person who I call a griefer. Or did you had another definition of "topic" in mind for this one?

This is a thread to look at what happend in Japan, and to see that if a possible review can be made of the raider play rules.

You are right though you can still post other problems w/ mods here on raider play. I just saw that is was getting a little lost on momentum, (sorry knowed spelled wrong.)

Ha. That's just it.

The moderators are "biased" simply because you disagree with them. I very much doubt we'd be hearing this complaint in the event that they agreed with you. Otaku was the founder of Japan and was thus installed as such. It only took an attempted invasion to get the native populace to request a founder.

We aren't omnipotent and as such have to react in response to stimuli. Invaders aren't deleted because of big invasions, they're because the big invasions direct attention to them and they get checked; some turn out to be cheaters and are therefore kicked and others play legitimately... but the fact that some are cheaters are not an indictment of the whole just like the fact most play fairly are a defense of every single kicked invader.

Think about it this way... we're the police. A bunch of people get together for some activity, which is well in their right, and so we apply some resources to keep an eye on it to make sure it remains civil. While there, we see some lawbreaking going on and we respond to it as our jobs say we should. This happens every day out in the real world and there's no real complaint.

Lol, this is the second time I have a discussion with a moderaor, and the second time, my nation Carinthe can't log in anymore. I am beginning to suspect a conspiracy :sniper:

Lol, this is the second time I have a discussion with a moderaor, and the second time, my nation Carinthe can't log in anymore. I am beginning to suspect a conspiracy :sniper:

And I am back. Disregard the last message. I seem to experience occasional glitches :headbang:

Ha. That's just it.

The moderators are "biased" simply because you disagree with them. I very much doubt we'd be hearing this complaint in the event that they agreed with you. Otaku was the founder of Japan and was thus installed as such. It only took an attempted invasion to get the native populace to request a founder.

We aren't omnipotent and as such have to react in response to stimuli. Invaders aren't deleted because of big invasions, they're because the big invasions direct attention to them and they get checked; some turn out to be cheaters and are therefore kicked and others play legitimately... but the fact that some are cheaters are not an indictment of the whole just like the fact most play fairly are a defense of every single kicked invader.

Think about it this way... we're the police. A bunch of people get together for some activity, which is well in their right, and so we apply some resources to keep an eye on it to make sure it remains civil. While there, we see some lawbreaking going on and we respond to it as our jobs say we should. This happens every day out in the real world and there's no real complaint.

I just would like to review the raider rules. That is all I'm saying, I not saying the mods are biased or anything I have respect for you guys.

I just think some of the rules are outdated, and need to be changed.

Ha. That's just it.

The moderators are "biased" simply because you disagree with them. I very much doubt we'd be hearing this complaint in the event that they agreed with you. Otaku was the founder of Japan and was thus installed as such. It only took an attempted invasion to get the native populace to request a founder.

We aren't omnipotent and as such have to react in response to stimuli. Invaders aren't deleted because of big invasions, they're because the big invasions direct attention to them and they get checked; some turn out to be cheaters and are therefore kicked and others play legitimately... but the fact that some are cheaters are not an indictment of the whole just like the fact most play fairly are a defense of every single kicked invader.

Think about it this way... we're the police. A bunch of people get together for some activity, which is well in their right, and so we apply some resources to keep an eye on it to make sure it remains civil. While there, we see some lawbreaking going on and we respond to it as our jobs say we should. This happens every day out in the real world and there's no real complaint.
I'm very surprised, surely an invasion that was only attempted doesn't count as the "extraordinary circumstances" required to appoint a founder, does it?

Otherwise I agree with pretty much everything you say. In the FAQ or on the getting help page or somewhere, it says that mods aren't there to resolve arguements, y'all have to do that yourselves. Its talking about forums here, but I think that people ought to apply that to gameplay as well.

I agree. Now if I can get the meeting set up for a review, will the mods or a few of them come?

The rules were only recently released and reviewed.

Well then 2 things then

May you give me a link of them?

Who had say in the rules?

The rules were only recently released and reviewed.


i thought those rules weren't enforced yet, and that we all have to play it still by the old rules?

yeah, that is why I was assuming that there were just the old rules. No one told me of the new ones.

The rules were only recently released and reviewed.
Myrth, are these the rules in the thread called "ATTN: INVADERS - Draft version of revised invasion rules!"? The thread with the warning at the top of the first page:

THESE RULES ARE NOT YET OFFICIAL IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. This is only a draft version!

?

The official ones should be somewhere in that thread... at least I think they are.

And just what "power" would we obtain by taking a region?

I never said mods wanted to take the region,a mod installed a founder at the exact same time as a legal invasion was taking place.That is someone acting with power or even power hungry.

I am not going to argue with you mods either because nations who argue vanish with out trace.

how about a explaination on japan then or am i :headbang:

The official ones should be somewhere in that thread... at least I think they are.

I just checked, they wern't

I havn't even seen the old ones written down yet.

1) He's not a new founder. He founded the region before founders got the powers the have now. The mod merely fixed that.
2) How is it griefing to throw out those who tried to take the nation over? Stop bitching.
3) The "elected" delegate was only "elected" by your little team of multis, not our nation. The legitimate delegate, TRULY elected, is in place again.

LISTEN WHO'S BITCHING HERE LOL

He is griefing he is still ejecting people out on mass number.That is against NS rules.

If invaders take over and started kicking out defender nations do you think we would get away with it I THINK NOT :rolleyes:

We all know the mods are anti-invaders, they eject and delete invaders at the flip of a penny.

There are mods in Defender regions helping defenders fight invaders unjustly.

In my long history of Invading and Defending I have NEVER seen a "defender" delegate ejected or deleted. even though they act much the same as the invader delegates.

The 1960s comes to mind when the law would look the other way when roaming mobs would beat and kill African Americans.

I remember seeing one mod say that he would do whatever he could to stop invaders.

But I would hope that it all boils down to the mods being anti-invaders because they are anti-paperwork.

the way this game is moderated needs to be reviewed.

The flagrant offenses I see usually result in deletions. I've seen offensive puppets created to harrass and flame Great Bight. Rest assured these puppets are swiftly deleted and their puppetmasters warned. The same would go for any of Bight's supporters if they were harassing the other side.
Great Bight became delegate legitimately. His endorsers were all from within the North Pacific, there was no invasion. As such, Great Bight can reasonably be considered a native delegate with all the privaleges that are afforded to them. If he chooses to use his ejection powers to remove political opponents or well, whoever he likes, this is legitimate. Until such time as Great Bight goes completely nuts and ejects all the UN members or something á la the National Stalinist griefing of The East Pacific, he is within the rules.

At present, his endorsers consist heavily, and quite likely mostly, of Pacificans arriving at the behest of Francos Spain, USSR members arriving at the behest of RedCommunist, people from New Sparrow, and various crashers and their sympathizers. The North Pacifican endorsers of Great Bight are overwhelmingly consisting of inactive (often abandoned) nations. The active natives (mostly ejected) could provide better examples and lists of these individuals than I.

Corinthe is quite right in suggesting the removal of ejection powers from the Pacifics. It would completely eliminate such problems in the future, give new members a better impression of the game (at present, my region's Civil Headquarters is flooded with newbies who have arrived from the NP, completely unaware of the situation and the game rules behind it), and allow for the building of simulated governments on a large scale. I think I've long since proven that a stable government is entirely possible in such an environment.

We all know the mods are anti-invaders, they eject and delete invaders at the flip of a penny.

There are mods in Defender regions helping defenders fight invaders unjustly.

In my long history of Invading and Defending I have NEVER seen a "defender" delegate ejected or deleted. even though they act much the same as the invader delegates.

The 1960s comes to mind when the law would look the other way when roaming mobs would beat and kill African Americans.

I remember seeing one mod say that he would do whatever he could to stop invaders.

But I would hope that it all boils down to the mods being anti-invaders because they are anti-paperwork.

the way this game is moderated needs to be reviewed.


I agree it needs to be reviewed, though I do believe that not all mods are anti invader. Some actually do their job very well.

I would also like to add, is that I don't see any written rules in which moderators are to follow.

Though here is a link for a post the Martian Puppet put in which I agree w/.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=321528&page=9&pp=15

I think it would be a good idea to have all the rules, just in a forum by itself where no one can post. Just rules where everyone can read them, and if they have a conflict w/ them, come here.

"A flip of a penny?" Are you on crack? There's no way we'd be allowed to keep our jobs if we let half these cases slide; it's lunacy. Invading Delegates are deleted if and only if they grief a region by kicking out lots of natives [most of them go for the gold, and kick them all out save for the founder, which makes this process relatively easy to judge] or if they send out large amounts of offensive regional postings or TGs.

Or, of course, if they're multi-ing. If a delegate ejects every native, I tend to delete the ex-delegate and everyone who endorsed him. There are standards for this type of thing, and you are apparently unaware of them, not being a moderator. And what's this nonsense about "moderators unjustly fighting invaders" by putting them in defender regions? Are we not allowed to play the game too? Are we expected to be soulless robots because we moderate a web game?

No. We're human. We form opinions, play the game the way we want to play the game and yes, we make mistakes.

Deal with it. Don't like it? I don't see a gun to your head.

" I tend to delete the ex-delegate and everyone who endorsed him. There are standards for this type of thing, and you are apparently unaware of them, not being a moderator.

No. We're human. We form opinions, play the game the way we want to play the game and yes, we make mistakes.

Deal with it. Don't like it? I don't see a gun to your head.


There is my point. We don't know about them, if we did, you think we would follow the rules more often than not. We should know what standards you guys go by.

We understand your human, just that moderation is not suppose to take sides. I'm not saying everyone does, but think about it. I bet you half of them do.

No. We're human. We form opinions, play the game the way we want to play the game and yes, we make mistakes.

Hmm... so Moderators play the game the way they feel like playing it? That's the problem right there. That means there are almost no neutral moderators because everybody has an opinion. Simply, it seems like the anti-invader mod's out number or out play the anti-defender mod's. True?

I don't want to build any sort of grudge between myself and moderators because I know that would be the end of NS life for me right there. Just some sort of justice would be nice; too bad there's no sort of NationStates Supreme Court to handle these kinds of things.

Hmm... so Moderators play the game the way they feel like playing it? That's the problem right there. That means there are almost no neutral moderators because everybody has an opinion. Simply, it seems like the anti-invader mod's out number or out play the anti-defender mod's. True?

All of the Moderators I know (quite a few of them) are RPers, not 'invaders' etc.

too bad there's no sort of NationStates Supreme Court to handle these kinds of things.

You know why? Because it's a private service. Would you go into a cafe and demand some sort of court for dealing with the staff you don't like? If you want rid of a moderator, either complain to the existing admins, or get yourself a large pile of cash, and buy the game from Max Barry and dismiss them yourself.

You know why? Because it's a private service. Would you go into a cafe and demand some sort of court for dealing with the staff you don't like? If you want rid of a moderator, either complain to the existing admins, or get yourself a large pile of cash, and buy the game from Max Barry and dismiss them yourself.

It might be a private service, but these people are hand picked, and should know the rules. I'm not saying most of them don't, but still everyone deserves to be treated fairly.

Also, how are we suppose to follow the rules, if they arn't CLEARLY posted? I have been on this forum most of today, and I have hardly found any rules.

Same, I've seen many "drafts" to rules but never clearly posted final rules. That would be a great thing to have clearly defined invading rules easily posted and link elsewhere possibly in NationStates. Like linked somewhere in the FAQ.

I do understand these people are normal people, but also that they were "hand-picked" like Anstan said. If they were hand-picked they should take their job seriously and seek to make NationStates a better and more fair game. Without any sort of invaders this game wouldn't get near as much support and activity as it does; defenders would stop existing there too because they would be fighting nothing. The game would get boring.

I'm sorry, but by taking away the ejecting powers of ANY UN Delegate in a founderless region, you are taking away a key element of the game.

Why not take away all ejection powers in all region? Then, none of this would ever happen, the mods would never be that busy, and the game would be even more boring to those that already complain about the lack of graphical interface.

Carinthe, point is, GB and other Delegates like him obtained the Delegacy spot, and he is entitled to certain powers, however, he may use them. In this case, he ejects political opponents and old-timers. He's supported by North Pacific residents, thus, he is the native Delegate regardless of whether or not those are abandoned or puppet nations.

Carinthe, if you are so unhappy with the rules of this game, why d'you - and others like you, I migth add - continue to play it? Why d'you continue to shout at the top of your lungs about how unfair things are? Why not just leave? Find a game that plays more to your liking?

It might be a private service, but these people are hand picked, and should know the rules. I'm not saying most of them don't, but still everyone deserves to be treated fairly.

Also, how are we suppose to follow the rules, if they arn't CLEARLY posted? I have been on this forum most of today, and I have hardly found any rules.

They're rules. Not laws. The staff of the site may close your account at any time for any reason whatsoever.

They're rules. Not laws. The staff of the site may close your account at any time for any reason whatsoever.

oh god dont give mods any more ideas

I from now on will be complaining to the admin and mr barry personaly.I will also be keeping a diary of all incidents like what happened at japan.

I'm sorry, but by taking away the ejecting powers of ANY UN Delegate in a founderless region, you are taking away a key element of the game.

Nobody is suggesting that. What is being suggested is the removal of ejection powers in the Pacifics, since their use does the most damage there, it has a bad effect on newbies, and a lack of it is a viable alternative.

Why not take away all ejection powers in all region? Then, none of this would ever happen, the mods would never be that busy, and the game would be even more boring to those that already complain about the lack of graphical interface.

Nobody is suggesting that either.

Carinthe, point is, GB and other Delegates like him obtained the Delegacy spot, and he is entitled to certain powers, however, he may use them. In this case, he ejects political opponents and old-timers. He's supported by North Pacific residents, thus, he is the native Delegate regardless of whether or not those are abandoned or puppet nations.

From what I've seen, he's taken up ejecting people for no real reason whatsoever. Also, merely being a 'resident' should not make one a native- invaders are residents, are they not?

Carinthe, if you are so unhappy with the rules of this game, why d'you - and others like you, I migth add - continue to play it? Why d'you continue to shout at the top of your lungs about how unfair things are? Why not just leave? Find a game that plays more to your liking?

Should Gandhi have moved to Tibet when he disapproved of British policies? Should MLK have set sail for Liberia? Should the Republicans (under Clinton) and the Democrats (today) have left the country en masse when they didn't approve of their leader's policies? No. Corinthe (and others like her) see a mod policy they believe is in error, and are trying to have it changed. You'd do the same in their shoes. This is a great game and you won't see people leaving anytime soon. However, when something is mishandled (or appears to be mishandled) expect to see some people speaking up. The desire to change a system from the inside, rather than throw some crazy revolution or just leave, is a strong one in reasonable people.

Carinthe, point is, GB and other Delegates like him obtained the Delegacy spot, and he is entitled to certain powers, however, he may use them. In this case, he ejects political opponents and old-timers. He's supported by North Pacific residents, thus, he is the native Delegate regardless of whether or not those are abandoned or puppet nations.

Mark my words: "As soon as he has enough power, and the little vacation of Francos Spain is over, you sing a whole other song. I know Ananke's opinion about the whole situation, and I am sure that from now on GB will slowly gain power. The old guard is adopting the same strategy as when FS became delegate. I stick to my own conviction: "He is slowly griefing the region, and there is nothing we can do about it. Hundreds of people are dissapointed in the justice system of this game, and that seems to be acceptable."

Carinthe, if you are so unhappy with the rules of this game, why d'you - and others like you, I migth add - continue to play it? Why d'you continue to shout at the top of your lungs about how unfair things are? Why not just leave? Find a game that plays more to your liking?
Yeah, if people like me would stop playing this game, nothing will ever change. I have never said that I didn't like the game. I just say that the moderators here are not up to the job. Certain players here deserve respect, but the mods do nothing when they, and all their friend in the region, get humiliated. There is a rule for griefing, but it is only theorethical. Any newbie, who is able to count endorsements, and has the time to do so, can keep a feeder region, without griefing. If I now eject 20 members from my region, I will instantly be deleted, but this delegate has in 1 week already ejected more nations, than I will ever in this game. Myrth is greatly exagerating the whole thing, that those people are mostly griefing the delegate. He is not making friends here. Actually I'find it a bit griefing, that he is calling those people griefers, just because this whole thing angers people.
I am not scared. I know that it is better to fight the system from the inside. It is people like me, who get things changed. The meek are the ones that atract dictators. If the majority was like me, a dictator would be mad to take over.

We all know the mods are anti-invaders, they eject and delete invaders at the flip of a penny.

There are mods in Defender regions helping defenders fight invaders unjustly.

In my long history of Invading and Defending I have NEVER seen a "defender" delegate ejected or deleted. even though they act much the same as the invader delegates.

The 1960s comes to mind when the law would look the other way when roaming mobs would beat and kill African Americans.

I remember seeing one mod say that he would do whatever he could to stop invaders.

But I would hope that it all boils down to the mods being anti-invaders because they are anti-paperwork.

the way this game is moderated needs to be reviewed.

If the mods were anti-invader, Francos Spain would have been ejected or BALEETED!

oh god dont give mods any more ideas

I from now on will be complaining to the admin and mr barry personaly.I will also be keeping a diary of all incidents like what happened at japan.

More ideas? I assure you, the moderation policy of this site is quite, no, very reasonable. I've known boards where users have been IP banned for being "just plain creepy."

The 1960s comes to mind when the law would look the other way when roaming mobs would beat and kill African Americans.
Because we all know that in a game consisting of little packets of data representing "nations" which are no more than sets of atribute numbers inbetween categories representing "regions" the elimination of some of those little packes is just like killing flesh-and-blood people in reality with hopes and dreams and pain.

Oh, we check defenders too. Guess what... historically, they've followed the rules more often. Most of them aren't UN multies and they don't grief. Thus, we don't have to do anything against them. Sometimes they do and we act on that. Most of the time they don't, and it's not our problem.

I don't care who the hell anyone is; if they break the rules, they're going to get punished for it. It doesn't matter who they say they are or what group they categorize themselves under. It's all the same in my book. If they happen to be invaders or Marche Noirans more often than others, so bloody be it. It's not my problem they chose to break the rules.

Because we all know that in a game consisting of little packets of data representing "nations" which are no more than sets of atribute numbers inbetween categories representing "regions" the elimination of some of those little packes is just like killing flesh-and-blood people in reality with hopes and dreams and pain.

Oh, we check defenders too. Guess what... historically, they've followed the rules more often. Most of them aren't UN multies and they don't grief. Thus, we don't have to do anything against them. Sometimes they do and we act on that. Most of the time they don't, and it's not our problem.

I don't care who the hell anyone is; if they break the rules, they're going to get punished for it. It doesn't matter who they say they are or what group they categorize themselves under. It's all the same in my book. If they happen to be invaders or Marche Noirans more often than others, so bloody be it. It's not my problem they chose to break the rules.


I'm reminded of saying "never post when you are angry"

They're rules. Not laws. The staff of the site may close your account at any time for any reason whatsoever.

Is that a threat?

Here I'm asking for a clarification of the rules. Not laws, and I'm getting threatend? I think that is a bit uncalled for. I'm trying to make NS a better place and here you are saying that I'm not allowed to express oppion.?

Because we all

I don't care who the hell anyone is; if they break the rules, they're going to get punished for it. It doesn't matter who they say they are or what group they categorize themselves under. It's all the same in my book. If they happen to be invaders or Marche Noirans more often than others, so bloody be it. It's not my problem they chose to break the rules.

Now that is the way it is suppose to be done. Unbiased oppions.

Heres my Two Cents:

I think the mods are not completely anti-invader but I think they do lean more towards the defenders then the invaders. I think it is very biased to have a mod in a known defender region. But other than that I think the mods try to be as fair as they can. Whats happens most of the time is invaders will goof up the rule and get punished. It happened to me and I really dont care because I know I messed.

Once again that my two cents

Heres my Two Cents:

I think the mods are not completely anti-invader but I think they do lean more towards the defenders then the invaders. I think it is very biased to have a mod in a known defender region. But other than that I think the mods try to be as fair as they can. Whats happens most of the time is invaders will goof up the rule and get punished. It happened to me and I really dont care because I know I messed.

Once again that my two cents

Which mod is in a known defender region? There are no mods who are active defenders, and there never were.

Sigh.

I already explained what happened in Japan. Either in this thread, or in the other thread talking about Japan, I see no need to repeat myself.

Also, while Tactical Grace and Myrth may be involved in regional politics, they are Forum Mods, not Game Mods. They have no powers outside the Forums. Game-side, they're just normal players.

Is that a threat?

No. It's a statement of fact. Much like a bar, the management has the right to ban you as they see fit.

LISTEN WHO'S BITCHING HERE LOL

He is griefing he is still ejecting people out on mass number.That is against NS rules.

If invaders take over and started kicking out defender nations do you think we would get away with it I THINK NOT :rolleyes:

Invaders can be ejected at will, by either a regional delegate or a founder. There is no limit to the number of invaders that can be kicked.

If the mods were anti-invader, Francos Spain would have been ejected or BALEETED!

Correction...

Francos Spain=Native. You can ask him, you can ask anyone else in the NPO or in the Pacific since then.

Yeah, if people like me would stop playing this game, nothing will ever change. I have never said that I didn't like the game. I just say that the moderators here are not up to the job. Certain players here deserve respect, but the mods do nothing when they, and all their friend in the region, get humiliated. There is a rule for griefing, but it is only theorethical. Any newbie, who is able to count endorsements, and has the time to do so, can keep a feeder region, without griefing. If I now eject 20 members from my region, I will instantly be deleted, but this delegate has in 1 week already ejected more nations, than I will ever in this game. Myrth is greatly exagerating the whole thing, that those people are mostly griefing the delegate. He is not making friends here. Actually I'find it a bit griefing, that he is calling those people griefers, just because this whole thing angers people.
I am not scared. I know that it is better to fight the system from the inside. It is people like me, who get things changed. The meek are the ones that atract dictators. If the majority was like me, a dictator would be mad to take over.But passive-aggressive attacks don't change anything. Start a thread and lay out all your 'evidence'.No. It's a statement of fact. Much like a bar, the management has the right to ban you as they see fit.Although I suspect it's going to be interesting in NS2 when people can play the "I am a paying customer" card.

The root of all these problems is that the rules aren't written down anywhere. When a dispute flares up, there's nowhere you can point someone to and say "See, this has been etched in stone for years."

Worse than that, in the past mods have made up new rules on the spot, when it suited their needs. This has also led to a lot of animosity.

I think the primary goal should be to write down all the rules in one place and have it be a nice clean link on the side of the page, like the FAQ...but not in the FAQ. Rules are important enough to have their own page. If the rules are going to change, there should be fair warning, and they should not apply to events that occurred before the rulings were made.

As for the subject of bias itself, I think it's pretty clear that the default behavior of most mods is anti-invader. If I understand what happened in the Japan situation, that's pretty bogus. (Mod-appointed founders are such a rarity than if this happened on the night of the invasion, that's a pretty clear bias, although not explicitly outlawed by the rules...since the rules are, as is often the case, totally vague on this point.)

This is not to say that they are pro-defender, however. I haven't seen much evidence of that. More than anything, they are pro-native, which is still a bias, and not a fun one if you want to try being an invader, as those who invaded Japan found out.

All that aside, when it comes to rules that no one disputes, the mods seem to be quite fair. Multis of any stripe are deleted on sight. No swastikas ever. Stuff like that.

When the rules are this clear, there is no argument, and while certain people might be upset, they don't really have a leg to stand on.

If we could get all the rules presented clearly, there would probably be a lot less outrage and accusations of bias when the mods do something that a particular group of people don't like.

Sigh.

I already explained what happened in Japan. Either in this thread, or in the other thread talking about Japan, I see no need to repeat myself.


Okay, I've done a little digging. It's difficult to get the whole story as this wasn't the work of just one mod, but here's what I've found...

On the 20th, I ejected Shinoka from the UN for being a UN Multi (not for any other reason). The task that lead me to look was expressing dismay that a young, new resident had suddenly obtained the Delegacy of Japan. I bounced over, ran a Cheat Scan, and found that Shinoka was a multi. Nation ejected, task forgotten.

On the 21st, another Mod appointed Otaku as the Founder, probably from another task. However Otaku has the strongest claim, being the oldest resident in the region. I can't speak for the other Mod's choice, but that's my assumption as to why it happened.
Was this the quote you meant btw?

Also, while Tactical Grace and Myrth may be involved in regional politics, they are Forum Mods, not Game Mods. They have no powers outside the Forums. Game-side, they're just normal players.
Well, up to a point. I think that if you asked TG, (and I know as we've discussed this on several occasions), he'd see that there is a balance to be maintained, and a potential for abuse if you are a moderator in a gameplaying position. Thats why, for reasons of transparancy, he changed his UN nation to Tactical Grace and handed over the delegacy of Mercia when he became a mod.

The root of all these problems is that the rules aren't written down anywhere. When a dispute flares up, there's nowhere you can point someone to and say "See, this has been etched in stone for years."

Worse than that, in the past mods have made up new rules on the spot, when it suited their needs. This has also led to a lot of animosity.

I think the primary goal should be to write down all the rules in one place and have it be a nice clean link on the side of the page, like the FAQ...but not in the FAQ. Rules are important enough to have their own page. If the rules are going to change, there should be fair warning, and they should not apply to events that occurred before the rulings were made.

As for the subject of bias itself, I think it's pretty clear that the default behavior of most mods is anti-invader. If I understand what happened in the Japan situation, that's pretty bogus. (Mod-appointed founders are such a rarity than if this happened on the night of the invasion, that's a pretty clear bias, although not explicitly outlawed by the rules...since the rules are, as is often the case, totally vague on this point.)

This is not to say that they are pro-defender, however. I haven't seen much evidence of that. More than anything, they are pro-native, which is still a bias, and not a fun one if you want to try being an invader, as those who invaded Japan found out.

All that aside, when it comes to rules that no one disputes, the mods seem to be quite fair. Multis of any stripe are deleted on sight. No swastikas ever. Stuff like that.

When the rules are this clear, there is no argument, and while certain people might be upset, they don't really have a leg to stand on.

If we could get all the rules presented clearly, there would probably be a lot less outrage and accusations of bias when the mods do something that a particular group of people don't like.


In better words, that is what I was trying to say. That the rules need to be in their OWN forum here. Then they need a closed thread for mod-powers, invader/defender rules, and ones that apply to everyone ex:no multi's.

Invaders can be ejected at will, by either a regional delegate or a founder. There is no limit to the number of invaders that can be kicked.

well im glad at last someone comes on and explain's some rules.it only took 5 pages or so.

a big round of claps please for Roania

The root of all these problems is that the rules aren't written down anywhere. When a dispute flares up, there's nowhere you can point someone to and say "See, this has been etched in stone for years."

Worse than that, in the past mods have made up new rules on the spot, when it suited their needs. This has also led to a lot of animosity.

I think the primary goal should be to write down all the rules in one place and have it be a nice clean link on the side of the page, like the FAQ...but not in the FAQ. Rules are important enough to have their own page. If the rules are going to change, there should be fair warning, and they should not apply to events that occurred before the rulings were made.

As for the subject of bias itself, I think it's pretty clear that the default behavior of most mods is anti-invader. If I understand what happened in the Japan situation, that's pretty bogus. (Mod-appointed founders are such a rarity than if this happened on the night of the invasion, that's a pretty clear bias, although not explicitly outlawed by the rules...since the rules are, as is often the case, totally vague on this point.)

This is not to say that they are pro-defender, however. I haven't seen much evidence of that. More than anything, they are pro-native, which is still a bias, and not a fun one if you want to try being an invader, as those who invaded Japan found out.

All that aside, when it comes to rules that no one disputes, the mods seem to be quite fair. Multis of any stripe are deleted on sight. No swastikas ever. Stuff like that.

When the rules are this clear, there is no argument, and while certain people might be upset, they don't really have a leg to stand on.

If we could get all the rules presented clearly, there would probably be a lot less outrage and accusations of bias when the mods do something that a particular group of people don't like.


Well said i totaly agree.The best reply i have read in a long time.(MODS TAKE A LOOK AT THIS AND GET DOING YOUR JOBS)

CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP

I watched this thread develop, but had little time for an in-depth analysis, and figured tonight I might read through it all and try to offer a moderate ( fairly un-biased ) and on-the-fence position, not taking sides. But having read this thread through twice, all I can con-clude is :

Life is too short.

While it is true at times the rules are not clear, I don't think I've ever seen so much out-right rumor, slander, and opinion peddling in a N.S. thread before.

And I am a U.N. Forum regular, ;)

All I can conclude is that in al this, at least the Moderators could keep a civil tongue in their heads, and on top of that, did their best to answer and explain. If players are too pig headed or willing to push their own petty agendas to listen or accept the words of wisdom offered to them freely, and in most cases with compassion and neutrality, then they bring their own fates down upon their own heads, where-ever their future leads them.

* And if moderators really could bundle the ignorant trumpteting nations amoung us into a sack in the dead of night, stuff them into the back of a lorry and drive them away, never to be heard from again, would have the posts in this thread still be here, really ? If only we could at times be so lucky.

Oh, and to who-ever wants to complain directly to Max Barry, good-luck, last I checked he was 12 weeks back on his email.

I wonder bloody why. :rolleyes:

" Oh ha ha bloody ha, and next you'll tell me they let the people vote too ! "

RANT/RAVE.EXE 100 % complete, end program ? ( " tap tap tap " * YES * )

I watched this thread develop, but had little time for an in-depth analysis, and figured tonight I might read through it all and try to offer a moderate ( fairly un-biased ) and on-the-fence position, not taking sides. But having read this thread through twice, all I can con-clude is :

Life is too short.

While it is true at times the rules are not clear, I don't think I've ever seen so much out-right rumor, slander, and opinion peddling in a N.S. thread before.

And I am a U.N. Forum regular, ;)

All I can conclude is that in al this, at least the Moderators could keep a civil tongue in their heads, and on top of that, did their best to answer and explain. If players are too pig headed or willing to push their own petty agendas to listen or accept the words of wisdom offered then they bring their fates down upon their own heads, where-ever their future leads them.

Oh, and to who-ever wants to complain directly to Max Barry, good-luck, last I checked he was 12 weeks back on his email. I wonder bloody why.


" Oh ha ha bloody ha, and next you'll tell me they let the people vote too ! "

Well we made progress in this thread. Now all I'm asking like it past posts is to post the rules clearly like I mention 3 or 4 posts back. Is that to much to ask?

Beachcomber said it beautiful. This is what we ask for.

When you write down the rules, you ultimately leave loopholes. There will be people exploiting these loopholes and complaining when they get deleted for it.
It has been explained countless numbers of times why we need these grey areas.

When you write down the rules, you ultimately leave loopholes. There will be people exploiting these loopholes and complaining when they get deleted for it.
It has been explained countless numbers of times why we need these grey areas.

On the other hand, when you don't write down those rules, there will be countless newbies, who have no clue what's going on.

There is a simple rule: "Play nice", but that seems to be a tough one in computer games. Nobody cares what the newbie feels, when s/he find him/herself in The Rejected Realms. For many of them that means they have lost. Your nation is rejected, period!

On the other hand, when you don't write down those rules, there will be countless newbies, who have no clue what's going on.

There is a simple rule: "Play nice", but that seems to be a tough one in computer games. Nobody cares what the newbie feels, when s/he find him/herself in The Rejected Realms. For many of them that means they have lost. Your nation is rejected, period!

Oh, well, that's part of the game.

Oh, well, that's part of the game.

It doesn't have to happen in your first few days. They should either be warned or protected against this. The game ís supposed to give every newbie a full opportunity to learn. They are not just toys for overly agressive players.

On the other hand, when you don't write down those rules, there will be countless newbies, who have no clue what's going on.

There is a simple rule: "Play nice", but that seems to be a tough one in computer games. Nobody cares what the newbie feels, when s/he find him/herself in The Rejected Realms. For many of them that means they have lost. Your nation is rejected, period!

The rules are there in some form or another. They consist of common sense, and a few sticky threads sitting in plain sight of the first page of the Moderation Forum.

While some rules shown are not official, they can at least act as a fair guide-line, hand in hand with the afore-mentioned common sense. But maybe thats our mistake as players in this community, mistaking so many people for having a little common sense and the will to be sporting and actually know the lay of the land that is N.S.

Analogy :

If people choose not to be careful, not to read the signs available, and to in a physical and metaphorical sense, dive into the deep end where there are not too many other swimmers, then its there own fault if they find some sharp rocks poking up beneath the water.

...

And please, if you find your-self in the rejected realms, then you should remember its only an case of some one who can click a button rejecting you, not an entire bloody web community. Maybe you should add the now common lack of perspective to the bloody long list of contrived things to blame game staff for.

It doesn't have to happen in your first few days. They should either be warned or protected against this. The game ís supposed to give every newbie a full opportunity to learn. They are not just toys for overly agressive players.

Well then maybe thats something the " overly agressive players " you speak of should be more considerate of when they communicate with new players. And I don't think I've ever seen many " overly agressive " defenders or native inhabitants compared to another demographic envolved here ...

But wait, last I checked, the Moderation staff were not omnipresent, so I guess its still all their fault, yes ?

I find it funny that Carinthe gets all upset that Francos and Bight kick political opponants out of their regions, but it's perfectly OK for her to do it. I've been kicked out of several of her regions for no other reason than her not wanting me there.

Also Kandarin, don't pretend that every new nation that gets kicked from TNP is a noob. The vast majority are the same old people creating new nations time and again just to cause trouble. I would consider that borderline griefing, although I hate that term, and if the mods had the time could realistically do something about.

It's funny, having been away from the forums for a couple of months, how much public opinion has done a 180. It used to be invaders complaining how the mods were biased toward defenders and now it's all the "defenders" who are trying to invade the pacifics who are claiming the mods are biased toward invaders. The irony could be cut with a knife.

Irony nothing.

It seems to me that it's proof that the mods aren't biased, and that people are just so wrapped up in their little worlds that any decision against them ius part of a vast conspiracy.

Which, I suppose, is a lot easier than admitting fault...

I find it funny that Carinthe gets all upset that Francos and Bight kick political opponants out of their regions, but it's perfectly OK for her to do it. I've been kicked out of several of her regions for no other reason than her not wanting me there.

Also Kandarin, don't pretend that every new nation that gets kicked from TNP is a noob. The vast majority are the same old people creating new nations time and again just to cause trouble. I would consider that borderline griefing, although I hate that term, and if the mods had the time could realistically do something about.

It's funny, having been away from the forums for a couple of months, how much public opinion has done a 180. It used to be invaders complaining how the mods were biased toward defenders and now it's all the "defenders" who are trying to invade the pacifics who are claiming the mods are biased toward invaders. The irony could be cut with a knife.

In Francos' case, I ran a survey of the Pacific banlist before it was cut to 200, with the help of Zyonn and Bistmath. We counted UN members only (and cut defender troops from the total), making the wild assumption that every nonmember was a puppet. The total was over 300. At the time, that was around 5% of the regional population, and at least a third of the UN members in the region. Tell me that all those were "the same old people".

Also, I've had the good fortune to observe some of the inner workings of the NP resistance, and despite NPO propaganda to the contrary, the organized elements of it are showing a great deal of restraint and are following the rules in propaganda messages to Bight's endorsers.

In Francos' case, I ran a survey of the Pacific banlist before it was cut to 200, with the help of Zyonn and Bistmath. We counted UN members only (and cut defender troops from the total), making the wild assumption that every nonmember was a puppet. The total was over 300. At the time, that was around 5% of the regional population, and at least a third of the UN members in the region. Tell me that all those were "the same old people".

Also, I've had the good fortune to observe some of the inner workings of the NP resistance, and despite NPO propaganda to the contrary, the organized elements of it are showing a great deal of restraint and are following the rules in propaganda messages to Bight's endorsers.Unendorsement campaigns are... something of a grey area so far as I'm concerned.

I once had someone TM everyone in my region telling them to move to The Desolated Lands. I thought that was a pretty cheap shot.

Irony nothing.

It seems to me that it's proof that the mods aren't biased, and that people are just so wrapped up in their little worlds that any decision against them ius part of a vast conspiracy.
*sniffs the air for cigarette smoke*

When you write down the rules, you ultimately leave loopholes. There will be people exploiting these loopholes and complaining when they get deleted for it.
It has been explained countless numbers of times why we need these grey areas.

Having grey areas produces the same affect as loopholes. If you create rules and write them down then people know the rules; when people find loopholes then you update the rules if needed. Grey areas, that makes no sense!

(MODS TAKE A LOOK AT THIS AND GET DOING YOUR JOBS)

CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP

Because we all know the mods here are receiving paychecks...

Give them a break, moderation isn't easy, especially when you have thousands of players all crying about something different.

Because we all know the mods here are receiving paychecks...

Give them a break, moderation isn't easy, especially when you have thousands of players all crying about something different.


Hey Invading isn't easy either when you have load's of different mods reading of different rule's.
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Oh, yeah, and every-body is equal, just some more so then others ...

Like Invaders, right ?

Pfffrt, should we be paying you lot instead ? :rolleyes:

This is what we ask for:

"The root of all these problems is that the rules aren't written down anywhere. When a dispute flares up, there's nowhere you can point someone to and say "See, this has been etched in stone for years."

Worse than that, in the past mods have made up new rules on the spot, when it suited their needs. This has also led to a lot of animosity.

I think the primary goal should be to write down all the rules in one place and have it be a nice clean link on the side of the page, like the FAQ...but not in the FAQ. Rules are important enough to have their own page. If the rules are going to change, there should be fair warning, and they should not apply to events that occurred before the rulings were made.

As for the subject of bias itself, I think it's pretty clear that the default behavior of most mods is anti-invader. If I understand what happened in the Japan situation, that's pretty bogus. (Mod-appointed founders are such a rarity than if this happened on the night of the invasion, that's a pretty clear bias, although not explicitly outlawed by the rules...since the rules are, as is often the case, totally vague on this point.)

This is not to say that they are pro-defender, however. I haven't seen much evidence of that. More than anything, they are pro-native, which is still a bias, and not a fun one if you want to try being an invader, as those who invaded Japan found out.

All that aside, when it comes to rules that no one disputes, the mods seem to be quite fair. Multis of any stripe are deleted on sight. No swastikas ever. Stuff like that.

When the rules are this clear, there is no argument, and while certain people might be upset, they don't really have a leg to stand on.

If we could get all the rules presented clearly, there would probably be a lot less outrage and accusations of bias when the mods do something that a particular group of people don't like. " -- Beachcomber

Is there a free mod who could talk to me about possibly figuring this out?
Thanks

This is what we ask for:

"The root of all these problems is that the rules aren't written down anywhere. When a dispute flares up, there's nowhere you can point someone to and say "See, this has been etched in stone for years."

Then to the sound of angelic choir and trumpets blowing, with a big flash of light, Max Barry created Moderators. Think of them as ... oh, I don't know, impartial enforcers of law. Its not that hard.


Worse than that, in the past mods have made up new rules on the spot, when it suited their needs. This has also led to a lot of animosity.

Or, they make a ruling to suit those conditions. Just because you do as they say in that instance does not mean they will not still pull you up, because the conditions may not be the same, for varying reasons/related factors.

I think the primary goal should be to write down all the rules in one place and have it be a nice clean link on the side of the page, like the FAQ...but not in the FAQ.

Yes, because then some people might actually stumble onto it. Heck knows they have a hard enough time finding stickies ...

Rules are important enough to have their own page.

Well I'll be F.A.Q.'d. Thats a F.A.Q.'ing good idea you have.

If the rules are going to change, there should be fair warning, and they should not apply to events that occurred before the rulings were made.

Because its not like we need the Moderators to make decisions on occasion. That aside, you make the red lights flash, and I'll start up the air-raid siren. Fair warning, and all that.

As for the subject of bias itself, I think it's pretty clear that the default behavior of most mods is anti-invader.

As for the subject of bias itself, I think its pretty clear that the default behavior of most Invaders is anti-moderator ... defender ... pacifist ... democracy ...

If I understand what happened in the Japan situation, that's pretty bogus. (Mod-appointed founders are such a rarity than if this happened on the night of the invasion, that's a pretty clear bias, although not explicitly outlawed by the rules...since the rules are, as is often the case, totally vague on this point.)

Uh-huh. Because we all know they want to ruin all our fun. After all, they killed JFK didn't they ?

This is not to say that they are pro-defender, however. I haven't seen much evidence of that.

Hmmm, see, I thought I saw your argument just devolve in a poof of logic. One would reason since the two main parties are invader/defender, and your claiming the Moderators are against Invaders ... But then again, my own arguments cease once I presume logic to start with.

More than anything, they are pro-native, which is still a bias, and not a fun one if you want to try being an invader, as those who invaded Japan found out.

Oh no, this is just terrible,

After all, its not like Japan did not shout out, " Hey, invade us ! We want you too ! Open for all the world to burn and pillage ! Toss out our natives ! Disrupt our work ! We deserve your hostility ! Its not like we are just minding our business ! ", is it ? :rolleyes:


All that aside, when it comes to rules that no one disputes, the mods seem to be quite fair. Multis of any stripe are deleted on sight. No swastikas ever. Stuff like that.

" And the Max spoke, and he said ... multis, no ... swastikas, no ... Moderators to decide and resolve disputes act within reason ... judge ... etc, etc, etc, yes ... "

And It Was Good. Unless certain groups get annoyed at them.

When the rules are this clear, there is no argument, and while certain people might be upset, they don't really have a leg to stand on.

Thats right, people might be upset but they don't have a leg to stand on. Hey, that reminds me of something ...

If we could get all the rules presented clearly, there would probably be a lot less outrage and accusations of bias when the mods do something that a particular group of people don't like. " -- Beachcomber

Because its not like people break the rules and then get angry when the rules are enforced. That never happens. Never.

Is there a free mod who could talk to me about possibly figuring this out?
Thanks

Because as you can see, its not like they've tried already, is it. :rolleyes:

As for the subject of bias itself, I think its pretty clear that the default behavior of most Invaders is anti-moderator ... defender ... pacifist ... democracy ...


Well being an Invader myself i have to disagree, many invaders (like myself) arent anti-defender, for without defenders ther would be no challange. And the anti-pacifist/anti-democracy, that can apply to anyone. As for anti-moderator im not an anti mod, i just wished it would be a bit more equal, nowaday its almost impossible to crash with all the rules up our arse, the crashers that manage to follow them all the mods make a founder ( ex.Japan).

If i say much more i'll probably end up swearing repeatedly.

I assume you're trying to be sarcastic.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

That's just crazy talk Cog, they think we care one way or the other.. Hahaha.

Well being an Invader myself i have to disagree, many invaders (like myself) arent anti-defender, for without defenders ther would be no challange. And the anti-pacifist/anti-democracy, that can apply to anyone. As for anti-moderator im not an anti mod, i just wished it would be a bit more equal, nowaday its almost impossible to crash with all the rules up our arse, the crashers that manage to follow them all the mods make a founder ( ex.Japan).

If i say much more i'll probably end up swearing repeatedly.

I just don't really understand *why* people enjoy invading.

I like to think of it similar to a small clique or gang of people just walking into other people's homes and helping themselves to whatever they like?

While I'm sure that might *seem* exciting, I just can't understand the shock felt by invaders when they discover people really don't appreciate the enjoyment they get by doing this the same way.

If you are looking for challenges, try collection 135+ endorsements for a proposal and then having your resolution pass. If you really want a challenge, try writing a resolution that people will talk about for months to come and collecting a high vote ratio.

There are plenty of ways to play the game without having to participating in invading.

There are plenty of ways to play the game without having to participating in invading.Once invading goes, defending goes. Do you have any idea how many people participate in that kind of gameplay and only that kind of gameplay?

Do you have any idea how many people participate in that kind of gameplay and only that kind of gameplay?

Yeah, without invasions the game will lose many players.

Nobody is suggesting that. What is being suggested is the removal of ejection powers in the Pacifics, since their use does the most damage there, it has a bad effect on newbies, and a lack of it is a viable alternative.

This is pure speculation. Since we are having a speculation party, I personally believe that more people have left the game from boredom then from being ejected from a Pacific region. Taking out a game dynamic such as the ability to rule a pacific, in my opinion, will only cause even more nations to leave for a lack of action. For all the talk of ill of invaders, I think people need to stop and notice that they are talking. Things such as these make the game more engaging. I’m not sure you will be able to see that you are speculating other then stating facts, but right or wrong it is certainly just an opinion.



From what I've seen, he's taken up ejecting people for no real reason whatsoever. Also, merely being a 'resident' should not make one a native- invaders are residents, are they not?

Without a list of those who will attempt to unseat him, what do you expect him to do?


If the mods were anti-invader, Francos Spain would have been ejected or BALEETED!

He was. However, it was obviously a misuse of power and was later declared to be a “bug.”




Oh, we check defenders too. Guess what... historically, they've followed the rules more often. Most of them aren't UN multies and they don't grief. Thus, we don't have to do anything against them. Sometimes they do and we act on that. Most of the time they don't, and it's not our problem.


Two things: A) I know that non-invaders do cheat a lot, as a member of our group has provided information to the mods to get many, many, many nations out of the UN. And 2) the mods certainly will deleted invaders and non-invaders. If there are issues with anti-invader sentiment, it is not with the investigation and punishment of black-and-white rules violations.

The root of all these problems is that the rules aren't written down anywhere. When a dispute flares up, there's nowhere you can point someone to and say "See, this has been etched in stone for years."

Worse than that, in the past mods have made up new rules on the spot, when it suited their needs. This has also led to a lot of animosity.

I think the primary goal should be to write down all the rules in one place and have it be a nice clean link on the side of the page, like the FAQ...but not in the FAQ. Rules are important enough to have their own page. If the rules are going to change, there should be fair warning, and they should not apply to events that occurred before the rulings were made.

As for the subject of bias itself, I think it's pretty clear that the default behavior of most mods is anti-invader. If I understand what happened in the Japan situation, that's pretty bogus. (Mod-appointed founders are such a rarity than if this happened on the night of the invasion, that's a pretty clear bias, although not explicitly outlawed by the rules...since the rules are, as is often the case, totally vague on this point.)

This is not to say that they are pro-defender, however. I haven't seen much evidence of that. More than anything, they are pro-native, which is still a bias, and not a fun one if you want to try being an invader, as those who invaded Japan found out.

All that aside, when it comes to rules that no one disputes, the mods seem to be quite fair. Multis of any stripe are deleted on sight. No swastikas ever. Stuff like that.

When the rules are this clear, there is no argument, and while certain people might be upset, they don't really have a leg to stand on.

If we could get all the rules presented clearly, there would probably be a lot less outrage and accusations of bias when the mods do something that a particular group of people don't like.

I should just have you post for me. I agree 100% or so.



When you write down the rules, you ultimately leave loopholes. There will be people exploiting these loopholes and complaining when they get deleted for it.
It has been explained countless numbers of times why we need these grey areas.

Without writing down all the rules there are larger, and more plentiful loopholes. The goal should not truly be for the elimination of all loopholes or grey areas, but in limiting these.