NationStates Jolt Archive

I have seen several nations place the url for the former government of the North Pacific on the civil hq several times a day. In fact, I have seen even during a conversation that someone will post the url because the previous message in which it was posted was bumped off. There are several nations that do this. Is this not spamming? Am I within my rights to report this as a violation? Also, how often may this off-site forum be listed on the civil hq? I understand the need for tolerance for such things, but I have to say that this is getting ridiculous...every conversation seems to require someone opposing the new government to post that URL.

If they are all different individuals, what is the problem? It is actually quite telling when so many are getting the word out about the forum they choose to use.

If several players were continually placing their URL in their posts in my region I would classify that as spam.

Another thing I was just thinking about:

If recruiters are allowed to post only once per day on a feeder region, would that not pertain to this URL as well? It seems to me that the people of the former government in the NP are recruiting nations to use their forum. Accordingly, they should only be allowed to post that URL once a day just as a regional recruiter, regardless of the different puppets/players who wish to spam the civil hq. I'd be interested in a mod response, although I do appreciate Unistrut's response.

Another thing I was just thinking about:

If recruiters are allowed to post only once per day on a feeder region, would that not pertain to this URL as well? It seems to me that the people of the former government in the NP are recruiting nations to use their forum. Accordingly, they should only be allowed to post that URL once a day just as a regional recruiter, regardless of the different puppets/players who wish to spam the civil hq. I'd be interested in a mod response, although I do appreciate Unistrut's response.
That actually makes a lot of sense. The advertising rules don't specify what type of advertisments are covered by the rules (as far as I know), only advertisments. So I suppose you could then claim that the old NP government is advertising their forum. I can't see why forum advertisements wouldn't fall under the advertising rules... I mean, technically they are advertising... I'm sure the mods are discussing now and will have a response in due time.

I think when this current situation in the NP, the URL posting is fine, but that's just me.

can't people put it in their sigs when posting?

like:

message

name
url

I don't see a problem with that, as long as there is a message that is pertinent. I recall a couple of messages with the URLs as being quite obvious for the purpose of advertising the URL.

I don't see a problem with that, as long as there is a message that is pertinent. I recall a couple of messages with the URLs as being quite obvious for the purpose of advertising the URL.

I remember posting, just to help people remember what the true forum url is, after I made a remark in someone's direction. If that is spam, we should abolish the signatures in people's posts. Are you looking for a rule change? ;)

Everyone's looking for a rule change lately.

There is, of course, a compromise position. Since the S2 forum is the forum of choice for 889 of his citizens, Great Bight could always include (as a public service) an impartial link to the URL as part of the World Fact Book entry. Then there would be no need to post it on the civil HQ.

Given the number of new people who have joined the S2 forum in the past week, there does seem to be a genuine interest in it.

The only problem with that compromise is that if the people on S2 are trying to take the delegate position away from the current delegate, would that not be a conflict of interest? If someone created a forum which had members against justice, I doubt seriously that I would post that forum for the sake of objectivity or compromise on my region.

Carinthe, I'm not sure that I am asking for a change of rules as much as a clarification of the existing rules.

The only problem with that compromise is that if the people on S2 are trying to take the delegate position away from the current delegate, would that not be a conflict of interest? If someone created a forum which had members against justice, I doubt seriously that I would post that forum for the sake of objectivity or compromise on my region.

Carinthe, I'm not sure that I am asking for a change of rules as much as a clarification of the existing rules.

Your delegate needs a change of heart. Since the url is taken away, more and more people are registering. Even I have become active again. Taking away the forum from the people is counterproductive, so now you hope to find grounds for their deletion? Sorry, that region is so big, that deleting nations for posting the original forum url is not working. Even I post it occasionally. I am not spamming it. I just use it as a signature. When I say something, I end my rant with a signature. All that would be over, if the "chosen" delegate listened to the people. Give the people what they want, and he'll get 400 endorsements in no time. Make them outlaws, and they use another strategy. Call it a threat, if you want :p
This is not The Pacific. We have learned. Not much, but still.

Your delegate needs a change of heart. Since the url is taken away, more and more people are registering. Even I have become active again. Taking away the forum from the people is counterproductive, so now you hope to find grounds for their deletion?

Actually, this is a good example of why the current system is broken.

If a UN Delegate needs to rely upon deleting competiting nations from the game *after* having invaded a region, in order to retrain control, then I'd call that a serious game defect.

FACT: Great Bight has ejected and banned tons of long-time "native" nations.
FACT: Great Bight was not active in the long established off-site forum before he become UN Delegate.

I think it is clear that he never had any desire to really participate in the forum *before* becoming delegate.

FACT: Recruiting new players from a feeder region is tolerated ... it comes with the "protections" from griefing that feeder UN Delegates are granted.

I think it is hypocritical for a feeder UN Delegate to practice censorship when basically nations are posting on a regional forum in order to generate interest for their cause.

If the North Pacific wasn't a feeder region, Great Bight himself would have lost his UN status for mass griefing.

What he is doing (or having advocated by puppets for his behalf) is ballant hypocrisy. If he wants to enjoy the protections for his actions on the case of being a feeder region, then he has to submit to the fact that he "nations" will be subjected to "spam" / recruitment posts from other regions. Be it to join other regions out right or to participate in their off-site forums.

Bottom line: you can't have it both ways:

If you allow Great Bight to delete nations because of spamming, then he should be subject to griefing rules as well. The Pacific rules aren't "anybody who is a moderators friend can do whatever".

I think at this point it would be much better to await a mod ruling rather than hijack this thread for want of a political diatribe. I understand the angst, but I am merely curious as to the legality of posting the URL on a civil hq more than once in a 24 hour a period. Is it governed by the same rulings as the recruiting spam or not? That is the point of this thread.

I think at this point it would be much better to await a mod ruling rather than hijack this thread for want of a political diatribe. I understand the angst, but I am merely curious as to the legality of posting the URL on a civil hq more than once in a 24 hour a period. Is it governed by the same rulings as the recruiting spam or not? That is the point of this thread.

I don't trust your motives. I think you are trying to get more support from the moderators. You want people to stop the url as signature, you have nothing against people who use their titles as signature. You are biased, and try to get mods to assist you, in your quest to get that forum out of their memories. You are so hypocritical. I have never seen you complaining when the NPO spammed their own forum, just to get the true The Pacific forum out of the resisdents minds. I even have seen you posting the NPO forum more than once a day. Try to be less biased, and stop begging for mod support on your own cause. Again you are using your puppet Myrdinn to back up the the arguments of Warrior Thorin. The mods frown on people who use puppets to back up their own arguments.

Now it is time for a word of the mods.

There is, of course, a compromise position. Since the S2 forum is the forum of choice for 889 of his citizens, Great Bight could always include (as a public service) an impartial link to the URL as part of the World Fact Book entry. Then there would be no need to post it on the civil HQ.

Given the number of new people who have joined the S2 forum in the past week, there does seem to be a genuine interest in it.

When you subtract the number of nations that have posted less than say 10 posts in the last months your numbers fall to a conservative figure of less than 200. Then you minus any puppets say 5% that leaves you with 190. You might want to prune your membership list. However 889 citizens sounds beter than 190 don't you think?

When you subtract the number of nations that have posted less than say 10 posts in the last months your numbers fall to a conservative figure of less than 200. Then you minus any puppets say 5% that leaves you with 190. You might want to prune your membership list. However 889 citizens sounds beter than 190 don't you think?

That is completely beside the point, but it still sounds a whole lot better than this:

Our members have made a total of 172 posts
We have 27 registered members
The newest member is NBCreporter
Most users ever online was 13 on Jul 25 2004, 11:32 PM

:p :p :p

I think at this point it would be much better to await a mod ruling rather than hijack this thread for want of a political diatribe. I understand the angst, but I am merely curious as to the legality of posting the URL on a civil hq more than once in a 24 hour a period. Is it governed by the same rulings as the recruiting spam or not? That is the point of this thread.

I disagree with your "opinion" on what you might call a political diatribe.

The mods should not make their ruling based in a total vaccum or in ignorance.

It is clear that Great Bight (or his puppets) are interested in having it both ways. I still advocate that since it has been shown many times over that it is impossible to ejection a nation in a feeder region for griefing, that the same tolerance for recruitment posts should be allowed.

The justification for no griefing in the Pacifics ... you can't really identify whom the natives are.

I would go on to say that you simply can't say, "Well, you can only post a URL once every 24-hours" is fair ... much less, how do you expect to rule on this? Are you asking that the mods sit around and wait for violations? Or should they just believe a player that has banned something between 50 to 100 nations in a few days time?

Personally I think the question you are asking is in poor taste, but I'm not surprised by it either. For weeks, Great Bight and his puppets (I'm not able to identify who is a real player or just somebody else's puppet) have shown zero interest in actually admitting that they have unjustily banned nations.

Mine was one of them, and I've made it completely clear that I am really only here to poke and drive the UN aspect of the game or to work on daily issues in the Got Issues forum. I spent months helping to build a "history" for my nation in the North Pacific, because I assumed based on the FAQ (game rules that are published) that should some jerk come into the North Pacific and ban me that I would have the ability to point to the griefing policy.

I'd say by the same lack of rules that screwed my game experience, since it is currently standard practice to allow recruitment in the Pacifics, that for anybody to whine about it, the appropriate response is simple:

If we eject nations for "spamming" in a feeder, then we'll retroactively begin ejecting any nations that have griefed many nations. Care to guess which two UN Delegates would be the first to be ejected from the UN then?

10kMichael

Carinthe, if you take a close look at the previous postings that I made, I did not say at all that I had a problem with the URL being in the signature. What I have a problem with is that people are merely posting the URL as spam. If they want to include it in their signature, then that is fine. As for Warrior Thorin, I accidentally logged in as my puppet. I think you've done the same with Gothic Kitty a time or two. I am not trying to get moderators on anyone's side (you should know me better than that). All I am asking is for a clarification of the rules, not a political debate. That, I believe is already on another thread.

I think you've done the same with Gothic Kitty a time or two. I am not trying to get moderators on anyone's side (you should know me better than that). All I am asking is for a clarification of the rules, not a political debate. That, I believe is already on another thread.

If you looked closely, those were the times when Carinthe suddenly couldn't get in the forum anymore. I have the same signature on both, so people see that it is me all the time.
We know each other for a long time now, but I still doubt your motivations here. Some people are still denying that the NPO is behind this :p
I go to sleep now, and I hope this thread died of natural causes when I wake up. I have a new forum to set up, with even more smilies than the current one :cool:

As for Warrior Thorin, I accidentally logged in as my puppet. I think you've done the same with Gothic Kitty a time or two. I am not trying to get moderators on anyone's side (you should know me better than that). All I am asking is for a clarification of the rules, not a political debate.

The question is why are you asking for a clarification of the rules? The motive behind a question is often as important as the question itself.


Off Topic, but worth considering ...

As for puppets, I think anybody using them should always be suspect of propping up their arguments by "defending" themselves. That is why I really think when anybody has a puppet, it should be made clear who is controlling that puppet via our "intelligence" agencies.

The way I'd suggest that be done is when you look at a non-UN nation, you can see what UN nation (since there is only one per player) last "influenced" the non-UN member. Influence could simply come from the same IP address, but of course you can still be tricky by switching computers from where you access your puppets ...

This though is another matter.

I have seen several nations place the url for the former government of the North Pacific on the civil hq several times a day. In fact, I have seen even during a conversation that someone will post the url because the previous message in which it was posted was bumped off. There are several nations that do this. Is this not spamming? Am I within my rights to report this as a violation? Also, how often may this off-site forum be listed on the civil hq? I understand the need for tolerance for such things, but I have to say that this is getting ridiculous...every conversation seems to require someone opposing the new government to post that URL.


Considering your a member of the NPO you've probably been ordered to bring this up here. Havn't checked page 2 but if any mods are looking at this, check out the political backdrop :p

PS:Advertiseings legal in the pacifics anyway, whats wrong with advertising for a forum :confused: :p

Dont try the cheap trick man, play the game, when folk on both sides try to get mods to turn the tables it makes it pointless in the first place.

Just a nice neutral comment anyways :fluffle: can't u all just get along?

If I recall correctly, there are still limits on advertising in the Pacifics. I don't see any logical reason why advertisements for a forum (or indeed any external website) shouldn't be subject to rules at least as strict as those regarding advertisements for regions. Whether the delegate is griefing or not should be completely irrelevant, as should the number of players who use the advertised forum.

Considering your a member of the NPO you've probably been ordered to bring this up here. Havn't checked page 2 but if any mods are looking at this, check out the political backdrop :p

PS:Advertiseings legal in the pacifics anyway, whats wrong with advertising for a forum :confused: :p

Dont try the cheap trick man, play the game, when folk on both sides try to get mods to turn the tables it makes it pointless in the first place.

Just a nice neutral comment anyways :fluffle: can't u all just get along?

Can you leave the politics out of this and get to the heart of the matter? No one ordered anyone to make a post. If someone from the NPO was curious, they would have posted what they wanted to know here, so stop with the conspiracy theories.

Advertisements are legal, but they are limited in the feeder regions to one post from a region in a 24 hour period.

Truthfully, I have had nations come into my own region and post their URL in their message on the civil hq. When I saw this same thing happening in the North Pacific I was curious about what the ruling is. I am not asking for a change of rules, I just want to know if that is spam. Quit turning this into a political issue. Perhaps everyone could remain silent until a mod issues a decision?

If I recall correctly, there are still limits on advertising in the Pacifics. I don't see any logical reason why advertisements for a forum (or indeed any external website) shouldn't be subject to rules at least as strict as those regarding advertisements for regions. Whether the delegate is griefing or not should be completely irrelevant, as should the number of players who use the advertised forum.

That is a simple one to answer:

Feeders aren't subject to the same rules as normal reasons.

Had the North Pacific been a normal region, Great Bight would have been ejected for mass ejections / bannings (via the griefing rules). Originally he was ejected, but then reinstated after the mods had a discussion on the special rules of the Pacifics.

The reason you are allowed to post advertisements, aka spam, the Pacifics, is they have an unfair advantage (two of them in fact).

First, all new nations spawn there. This gives the Pacifics UN Delegates a few quick easy endorsements, making it easier for the Pacifics to run their UN bills / resolutions through votes.

Second, it is harder for new nations to get the UN Delegacy in the Pacifics, because many of the UN Delegates regularly eject nations when they begin to approach the UN Delegates current endorsement counts.

The analogy is this ... in Nov. 2004 the US is holding an election for President. Early returns will be from smaller states, less votes to count, and let's say that President Bush sees exit polls in other states, like say Florida, that seem to indicate that he might not win that state. So instead of allowing Kerry to *keep* his current votes, Bush would declare, "Kerry is ejected from the Presidential Election by Executive Order." He then bans Kerry.

In a normal region, UN Delegates are limited to ejecting 20% of the nations. But in feeders that number is higher: around 40% IIRC, plus 40% of 6000+ nations is a lot more than 20% of 10 nations.

UN Delegates in the Pacific are fixed in the game. They basically vote however they like and really aren't responsive to anything, because new players swap endorsements as easily as we can post and talk about game mechanics right here.

If we could either treat the UN Delegates in the Pacifics like normal delegates or limit their ejection / bans to actual real cases of spam abuse, then I wouldn't have a problem. But the reason Great Bight is *still* in power is because the mods are basically propping him up via their rules.

In all fairness, if a Pacific UN Delegate gets special mod treatment because these are "feeder regions", then it seems only fair that the long boosted rule that you *can* come to the Pacifics to recruit others to join your regions should be the case as well.

This is why I say it is important to keep in mind who is advocating what and why!

However the mods make a decision, will become essentially a new "rule". Do they really want to say that Pacific UN Delegates can now get nations deleted for advertising? I think the griefing situation was out of control, but to advocate deletion on top of censorship? This game is really quickly going to the dogs if they move that direction.

Why? Because you'll see people like Great Blight asking to have people deleted all the time ... for *whatever* reason he likes. Why? Because you really can't keep track of regional advertising.

The best solution actually would be to completely randomize where nations spawn and just do away with "feeder" regions. Without the influx of newbies, everybody would move into founder based nations and the mods could spend more time actually worrying about improvements to the game and ironing out real disputes, not these current squabbles over a bunch of unpublished house rules.

Can you leave the politics out of this and get to the heart of the matter? No one ordered anyone to make a post. If someone from the NPO was curious, they would have posted what they wanted to know here, so stop with the conspiracy theories.

Advertisements are legal, but they are limited in the feeder regions to one post from a region in a 24 hour period.


This isn't about conspiracy theories. It is based on the fact that a decision made today will change the game. People should consider the political ramifications of that and think critically. If it is found out that you are NPO, a mod should wonder, "What does the NPO have to gain by this?" as much as "What does the non-tank rushing nations have to gain by this?"

Me, I hate tank rushing games. They are completely unrealistic, and frankly, if you spend much time talking with newbies, this is not why they come to the game. Basically the Pacifics are becoming a sort of indoctrination ground, and changing the way the UN itself works. Which is a real shame, as that wasn't the point of the game.

I don't see a 24-hour "hold" as being either enforceble nor fair. The UN Delegates can really eject and ban a nearly unlimited number of nations before hitting griefing. They *should* have to undure the political backlash for that.

If Bush were to eject Kerry from the Presidential race, do you honestly want to say that Democrats could only tell people to "leave" the US government once a day?

How many ways do you really want to change NationStates into CensorshipStates? Come on, let's try and be a bit realistic and think about the game mechanics implications before we start advocating anything here folks.

I see the topic, but I don't have a ready answer for you; I don't want to make a unilateral ruling, here.

I'll discuss this with the other Mods and get back to you.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Mikitivity, you seem to want to change an awful lot lately within the confines of NationStates.

Keep in mind, while your changes are admirable, they are unrealistic at this time. Do you really think *major* changes to NS I are going to take place when NS II is right around the corner?

I think your "discussions" on said debates should be in NS II, especially the ones surrounding the place of the Pacifics and the changes of rules that you wish to take place, because some of them are so ludicrous as to be considered right now.

I don't think Miki's asking for a rules change, but maybe I'm reading him wrong. All he wants is for people to be allowed to make posts on the HQ forum that link to a forum they enjoy. It's not regional recruitment and to equate it to such is ridiculous. "Hey guys, stay in the region you're in and post on these forums." Does that sound like it's distinctly not regional recruitment to anyone else? Nowhere does the message or the forum ask users to change regions. The idea of recruiting people to a regional forum, in fact, provides incentive for users to stay in the region.

To deny the ability to post on the regional HQ is to deny the single tool that Pacific defenders have at their disposal, and it's not even a very powerful one. It is one that the delegate can already deny no questions asked.

I see the topic, but I don't have a ready answer for you; I don't want to make a unilateral ruling, here.

I'll discuss this with the other Mods and get back to you.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Thanks, Cogitation.

Mikitivity, you seem to want to change an awful lot lately within the confines of NationStates.

Keep in mind, while your changes are admirable, they are unrealistic at this time. Do you really think *major* changes to NS I are going to take place when NS II is right around the corner?

I think your "discussions" on said debates should be in NS II, especially the ones surrounding the place of the Pacifics and the changes of rules that you wish to take place, because some of them are so ludicrous as to be considered right now.

Actually I'm asking for less than you might think ...

changes how delegates work or to the FAQ, yes, that is something that should be *slowly* worked on, but I'd at least like to hear, "Gee, you're right, this game certainly has taken an unfortunate turn as of late, because few of the regular players seem to be happy and they all are asking for us to do opposite things."

I think Cog basically said something like that when he / she said they'd look into it.

I'm happy with that.

But there are other things that can be done without a rules change. Namely, if we are going to say that UN Delegates for feeder regions can't be held accountable for griefing, which it has been proven that it is nearly physically impossible to grief so many nations in a day, then perhaps a ruling in *kind* should be called for to hold that nations *visiting* another region can't be held accountable for advertisting or even spamming, so long as the adverts / spam are in good taste, i.e. meet all of the other conditions and standards for NationStates telegrams.

What we have is the Great Bight camp removed the link to the long established North Pacific forum. So what is the response of off-site forum regulars ... to tell newcomers that there is an off-sirt forum and that they should check it out.

Unable to control the mostly harmless messages, Great Bight's camp is now asking the moderators to respond by deleting nations. To basically clean up a situation that *he* created by his massive ejections / bans.

Don't you think that is a bit much?

To be honest, I'm offended that they would do this. They talk about how they've played everything to the "rules" and were "nice" about it. But the minute they don't have a censorship button the want moderator intervention.

What is next? If you post "move to my region" in the forums and those regions aren't the Pacific or the North Pacific your nation will be banned?

I hope you all can see the slippery slope that we are traveling on and how this began the minute that the moderators allowed the mass griefing. There is a reason that policy existed in the first place, please don't now change the rules AGAIN and decide that feeder regions are immune to adverts seeking to get newbies into other regions!

Why don't we just wait and see what the mods rule? For crying out loud, your argument has been stated several times in this thread already! :headbang:

The rules say: "Don't SPAM!" I always thought that that was clear enough. Now we are waiting for mod ruling on different kinds of spam?
:rolleyes: <--- Myrdinn, this is a sarcastic smilie ;)

Why don't we just wait and see what the mods rule? For crying out loud, your argument has been stated several times in this thread already! :headbang:

Is this where you point out how annoying that is and should be grounds for deletion or loss of UN status? Sounds extreme to me, because there is probably a reason I've posted multiple times ... care to ask why?

Where have I ever called for deletion of any player? I really do not appreciate you assuming what my motives are, much less placing words in my mouth. You do not know me and I do not appreciate it all. I am merely asking that we all calm down, remain reticent, until there is a ruling. Why is this difficult?

Where have I ever called for deletion of any player? I really do not appreciate you assuming what my motives are, much less placing words in my mouth. You do not know me and I do not appreciate it all. I am merely asking that we all calm down, remain reticent, until there is a ruling. Why is this difficult?

First, I don't need to "know" you to read your posts.

Second, was it not your puppet Thorin that wrote:

I have seen several nations place the url for the former government of the North Pacific on the civil hq several times a day. In fact, I have seen even during a conversation that someone will post the url because the previous message in which it was posted was bumped off. There are several nations that do this. Is this not spamming? Am I within my rights to report this as a violation?

A violation for spamming *has* already been issued to one North Pacific nation. She was deleted.

To advocate for the rights to start reporting (snitching basically) nations that you happen to not like, you are basically seeking deletion.

Let's think about this ... Great Bight already *is* ejecting and banning non-UN members for spamming. You basically are now asking that in addition to his policing the North Pacific, that you can report nations to the mods and have them deleted.

Everybody here should suspect your motives. Even if you want mods to sit there 24-7 watching for more than a single off-site advertisement in a day violation, to be fair, others should be deleted just the same.

Like you, I was watching the North Pacific (being that I am one of the natives on the banned list) for some time, and both sides were frankly behaving like children. And yet your objections were raised to ask that the Great Bight supporters be deleted. Instead you've consistently advocated that the mods jump in and start knocking off players whom post multiple adverts for the North Pacific off-site forum.


You didn't answer or rather "ask" my question, which is important here. Why are these people so compled (sp?) to waste a day bothering with the regional board?

Seriously! Get off your high horse and stop pretending that you aren't one of the parties involved and think about this not as "player" but as a person. Why would they spend so much time posting this link?

The answer should be obvious. They had the link to their forum cut off, they feel as if they have been treated unfairly by both Great Bight and the NationStates moderation team, because if you read the FAQ it sure looks like what he has done in the course of a few weeks is classic griefing. They are told to cut out unendorsement telegramming campaigns, and most of them do. They are told to cut out unendorsement posts to the regional board ... though I doubt they'll care about that.

Basically everything they are doing is being met by people like you or the mods and they are being told, "Sorry, but we are going to have to censor you again."

The situation *is* out of control, and I'm advocating that if the mods are going to continue to make decisions that happen to favour the goals of Great Bight, they are going to continue to have this situation continue.

Believe me, I've been trying to calm many of these players down and just moving the group into a regional founder based new location to just start over. Personally I'm pissed as hell by the lack of respect the majority of the moderation team has shown, and there have been a few other events (posted on the North Pacific forum) which really indicate that Great Bight does have a moderator friend.

To make matters worse, some of the GiE (North Pacific natives) are now editing posts they don't like on their forum. Why? Because the mods and people like you have really taught them that this game isn't "NationStates", but is more apt to be called "PoliceStates". Censorship is rewarded. Orwellian Real-Fact is as well.

I seriously doubt that there would be a problem about any of this if Great Bight would just post a link to the North Pacific off-site forum along with a disclaimer saying that posts are being edited there (which they are) and that many of the players are bitter about what he considers a legal mass ejection / ban move in order to maintain political stability.

You are pushing the mods, but have you considered just asking Great Bight to maybe back down?

While I'd love to sit down and have a rational discussion about this, I highly doubt that a player who started the discussion using a puppet is somebody I can really trust. Why play with puppets? I don't, and precisely for this reason ... because as much as you whined that I don't know you, have you a clue as to who I am or why I care? Have you read through my posts or seen what I've done in the game since Feb? Whatever conclusion you might come to, I will assure you, I certainly have no desire to prop up my own arguments to lean on friends to speak my mind. And I think if more people were to basically be a bit more up front and honest about their opinions in the Moderation and Technical and Got Issues forums (i.e. the non-roleplaying areas) that the moderators would be better equiped to making a decision that is frankly in the best interet of the game.

Mik, if you're so adamant about reposting your arguments over-and-over again, why not just e-mail them to admin@nationstates.net and WAIT for the mods to make a ruling, because you are spamming your own thread.

You are also accusing players of using puppets in here when YOU HAVE NO IDEA if that is the truth or not, I'd be careful on the ground you're treading on. Accusing the moderators of bias is another no-no, you need to take your claims up with admin if you are unhappy, not accuse them with no proof here.

Because so far, you haven't backed up any of your accusations.

It's okay if you want rule changes or clarifications, but pushing the mods AND other players is not the way to do it.

If you're unhappy with the current climate in The North Pacific, get off your butt and do something about it, don't whine to the moderators about making rule changes when you yourself aren't doing a thing to stop GB.

Locked until verdict is issued.


http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DrChaotica.jpg (http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/taunt1.mp3)
Myrth
Ruler of the Cosmos
Forum Moderator