NationStates Jolt Archive

Invader delegate "Galaxian" took Northern Ireland the other night.

Late-midafternoon yesterday (9/16), he ejected a nation called "Victories", the past delegate, for causing unrest amongst the other natives.

Galaxian removed Victories from the unban list this morning (9/17), after only one (1) system update. Galaxian was later ejected from the UN for rule violations.

Is there any way you can clear up what happened, or maybe tell me what I missed or was misinformed about?

Banned natives must be unbanned immediately, not after the server update. When I filed my report on this last night, "Galaxian", an invader Delegate, had banned "Victories", a native, and there was no sign of a future unbanning - neither myself nor the moderators are psychic.

yeah, you have to unban natives immediatly after ejecting them, or else it's griefing (breaking the rules).

there's a sticky in gameplay with the rules posted..

Interesting. Doesn't the same sticky say this?

Your rights as a native
Natives are generally not allowed to be perma-banned. However, when a Native becomes overly unruly - i.e. spamming/griefing/etc. - the invader delegate is allowed to leave said nation on the ban list a little more permanently (1-2 days approx.)
(Which means you can't permanently ban a native!!)
-Neutered Sputniks


if the native was causing unrest would that be considered unruly?

*Note-not affiliated with the invaders in question.

Didn't think the Monte Carlo (Corinthe v. Fisz) precedent was still in force...never liked that ruling anyway. *shrugs*

Anyway, that precedent was where Fisz (invader delegate) ejected and unbanned a puppet of Corinthe (native), whereupon Corinthe immediately rejoined the region. This occured repeatedly, until finally Neut ruled that Fisz could ban Corinthe's puppet for an extended period of time to stop her from rejoining.

I've never seen this precedent applied elsewhere, though, so I wouldn't rely on it.

ON EDIT:
*pounces*

Remember, every ruling is subjective, and not exactly set in stone. There can be very many different situations that cause those previous rules to become obselete, or to not really apply.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=5648873&postcount=100

yeah, that mostly had to do with corinthe spamming the regional happenings in monte carlo and the RR (although i still think fisz was just as much to blame, never liked or agreed with that ruling either).

yeah, that mostly had to do with corinthe spamming the regional happenings in monte carlo and the RR (although i still think fisz was just as much to blame, never liked or agreed with that ruling either).

A day later Fisz was deleted for griefing, and the Monte Carlo is still mine, all mine *Hysterical laughter* :p

Either way, He had unbanned Victories, He didnt greif the region, He didnt spam the region, and thats his only UN. What rule did he break? Even the natives are confused.

From my point of veiw, someone probably got mad at him for taking it and made up a bunch of bs about him.

Either way, He had unbanned Victories, He didnt greif the region, He didnt spam the region, and thats his only UN. What rule did he break? Even the natives are confused.

Actually....

yeah, you have to unban natives immediatly after ejecting them, or else it's griefing (breaking the rules).

That's been in effect since I started playing the game.

he didn't unban victories immediatly after kicking him.
that is the problem.

Regional Happenings
4 hours ago: The Republic of Muldoon arrived from The East Pacific.
7 hours ago: The Armed Republic of --Discordia-- departed this region for The South Pacific
8 hours ago: The Once Glorious Land of The Valley of Mines departed this region for The South Pacific
8 hours ago: The Sultanate of Nohuwak departed this region for The South Pacific
14 hours ago: The Federation of Galaxian removed The Hirgizstanian Commonwealth of Legionnaires from the regional ban list.
17 hours ago: The Democratic States of Semeridon arrived from The South Pacific.
17 hours ago: The Hirgizstanian Commonwealth of Legionnaires departed this region for The Rejected Realms
17 hours ago: The Federation of Galaxian ejected The Hirgizstanian Commonwealth of Legionnaires from the region.
17 hours ago: The Hirgizstanian Commonwealth of Victories departed this region for The Rejected Realms
17 hours ago: The Federation of Galaxian ejected The Hirgizstanian Commonwealth of Victories from the region.

Didn't think the Monte Carlo (Corinthe v. Fisz) precedent was still in force...never liked that ruling anyway. *shrugs*

Anyway, that precedent was where Fisz (invader delegate) ejected and unbanned a puppet of Corinthe (native), whereupon Corinthe immediately rejoined the region. This occured repeatedly, until finally Neut ruled that Fisz could ban Corinthe's puppet for an extended period of time to stop her from rejoining.

I've never seen this precedent applied elsewhere, though, so I wouldn't rely on it.

ON EDIT:
*pounces*



http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=5648873&postcount=100

I have read and understood your entire post. Including the ones between the quoted post and this one. I am flabbergasted. I've seen cases where rules were made up, i've seen cases where rules were assumed, and I've seen cases where rules were in place and used. This is the first time I've ever seen a stated rule just totally ignored with no warning.

Ok, someone decides to play this game and they decide to play it as an invader. They look in the FAQ to find the rules. The rules are sketchy and basically tell you to just behave. So you look further and find that the forums have some information on how to behave. After scouring three sections you find the sticky that gives you the rules. The rules appear to be updated regularly by the moderators and so it is assumed that the rules are in place and are approved by moderators. You also understand that if you do anything that's not stated in the rules you could be in trouble.
So the rules say if a native is acting unruley you can boot them for a day. The situation comes up and you get booted from the UN. You ask why? You get told to look in the sticky which says what you did was legal. You then are told that that information may have been outdated, never seen it used, and the moderators can just ignore the rules anyway.

Incredible.

I gave up trying to argue with moderators a long time ago. I know it's futile. But if you're going to maintain a sticky about what the rules are and aren't and then decide that you're going to go against the sticky I think it would be more fair to provide a warning first instead of just outright punishment.

*Note - Still not associated with the invaders in question.

Um....since when is Corinthe v. Fisz a rule? I wouldn't have put that in the sticky myself, it's a misleading precedent which has only (to my knowledge) been applied once, in that specific case. NationStates v. Galaxian seems clear-cut enough to me. *shrug*

Personally I think this just highlights the problems with Corinthe v. Fisz and would suggest that it be overruled. :)

Thanks for helping guys. Will mods comment on this (or have they commented on this)? I really want to hear their explanation of why they ejected some one contrary to the rules stated....

I don't think it matters why it was created in the first place; the post clearly states they can be banned for up to one update. If it only applies to certain situations, it has to be stated, at least for the sake of new players.

Um....since when is Corinthe v. Fisz a rule?

I have no idea what a Corinthe v. Fisz is beyond your guessing that what what I quoted from the stickied thread in gameplay is somehow connected to it.

As far as when something becomes a rule, I would put forth that when the game authorities sticky and then maintain a post entitled "What's Legal and whats not" that whatever is in that post can be considered a rule.

The situation is getting rather interesting.

EDIT: It turns out I was a bit ill-informed. Victories was not unbanned when Galaxian was ejected.

However, I'd like to argue that he was ejected early in the morning, before he would have been able to unban him. And according to the stickie, he still had a half-day's grace period before he was required to unban him.

Ok, this is what happened:

I gained the delegacy a few days ago. Yesterday, Victories was just plain aggravated. He talked down to everyone, and made a lot of natives feel insignificant. I was telegramed *BY NATIVES* asking me to eject him, because he was creating a negative environment. I ejected him, and banned him. I AM allowed to do that. That is what the eject button is there for. He was acting up, and no one wanted him here, so I did what I had to do to make the region better.

What rule have I violated? None, I think.

First of all, to the originator of this thread: Galaxian didn't unban Victories. I did.

Secondly, in the case of Corinthe v. Fisz do remember that it wasn't a single ejection. Neut made his ruling based on his view that the continual ejection/unban/rejoin/ejection cycle constituted spamming of the Regional Events, which is why he allowed Fisz to leave Corinthe on the ban list. This is clearly not the case here.

I gained the delegacy a few days ago. Yesterday, Victories was just plain aggravated. He talked down to everyone, and made a lot of natives feel insignificant. I was telegramed *BY NATIVES* asking me to eject him, because he was creating a negative environment. I ejected him, and banned him. I AM allowed to do that. That is what the eject button is there for. He was acting up, and no one wanted him here, so I did what I had to do to make the region better.

What rule have I violated? None, I think.

Well, see, if you were a native that might be the case, but since you are an invader, you have to remove people from the ban list. Natives requesting that you eject him is not sufficient. Know, you would have been more than welcome to eject him as long as you removed him from the ban list. Had this become a cycle of you ejecting him and him coming back, then we would look to see if the ruling in Corinthe v. Fisz applied.

well, call me narrow minded, but what good would it do? to eject him only to have him be able to come back at his will? Native or not, i won the region fair and square. He's not wanted there.

Secondly, in the case of Corinthe v. Fisz do remember that it wasn't a single ejection. Neut made his ruling based on his view that the continual ejection/unban/rejoin/ejection cycle constituted spamming of the Regional Events, which is why he allowed Fisz to leave Corinthe on the ban list. This is clearly not the case here.

*sigh* ok. The passage I quoted is directly attributable to this corinthe/fisz thing. This does not change my arguement that there is nothing that alludes to my original quoted passage not being valid in this situation in that thread/post. Since it allows something that is in fact punishable it must either be a typo, a mistake, or outdated. If I may be so bold as to ask our esteemed and vaulted game authorities to perform one of the following three actions in light of this:
1.) Remove the passage from the sticky
2.) Provide a warning instead of a punishment next time that someone performs a game action that is stated as being allowed.
3.) Modify the sticky to provide the extra information that has been brought forth in this thread.

*goes in the corner to apply blindfold/cigarette/ tie own hands and wait for the bullet.

Interesting. Doesn't the same sticky say this?

Your rights as a native
Natives are generally not allowed to be perma-banned. However, when a Native becomes overly unruly - i.e. spamming/griefing/etc. - the invader delegate is allowed to leave said nation on the ban list a little more permanently (1-2 days approx.)
(Which means you can't permanently ban a native!!)
-Neutered Sputniks

if the native was causing unrest would that be considered unruly?

*Note-not affiliated with the invaders in question.

IMHO, no. Neut clarified what was intended by unruly: spamming, griefing, etc... This does IMHO not apply to the normal intra-regional political affairs, so if one group of natives don't like/hate/wish to oust/whatever a certain other native and ask for that nation's removal, the invader delegate still isn't allowed to ban that native nation. The claim above is that Victories was engaging in (not quoted) unfriendly behaviour towards fellow natives. I've seen nothing to indicate it was reaching the level of flaming, flamebaiting, trolling, or anything that would make the Corinthe vs. Fisz ruling apply. Not saying it didn't, just that no evidence of it was posted here.

For the record, I don't like the way the ruling is presented either, since IMHO the decision on whether or not this applies should really be up to a mod, not to an invader who may be eager to decide to ban a native for a longer period of time. Note that in the Corinthe vs. Fisz case a mod placed Corinthe on the banlist after Fisz unbanned Corinthe (after ejecting for the unmpteenth time). Also, I'm still concerned that an invader could abuse this ruling as a mechanic: simply keep ejecting the same native nation over and over until the nation either doesn't return or the act of returning is deemed 'spamming' the regional happenings and that same nation may be banned for a longer period of time. But, that objection has more to do with interpreting the return of a native as spamming the Regional Happenings than the ruling that 'unruly' natives may be banned for a longer period of time.

Ballotonia

well, call me narrow minded, but what good would it do? to eject him only to have him be able to come back at his will? Native or not, i won the region fair and square. He's not wanted there.

I believe you may be misunderstanding the concept of invasions. You did not win the region itself, you won temporary control over the region. Control which is limited by the rules placed upon invading delegacies.

For one, an invader delegate may not obstruct the free movement of natives to their own region. This is why passwords have to be handed out immediately, and why natives must be removed from the banlist immediately if they are ejected (something that may be necessary, and is allowed within bounds of reason, for an invader delegate to maintain control of the region).

Ballotonia

IMHO, no. Neut clarified what was intended by unruly: spamming, griefing, etc...

I see your point. Yet since there has never been a defintion of griefing one could surely come to the conclusion that a nation that annoys it's neighbors to the point where the natives ask for ejection would be considered causing grief and therefore performing the action "griefing". That would seem a logical step.

Native or not, i won the region fair and square.
Incorrect. You occupy the region as an invader. You cannot claim ownership of the region.

I believe you may be misunderstanding the concept of invasions. You did not win the region itself, you won temporary control over the region. Control which is limited by the rules placed upon invading delegacies.

For one, an invader delegate may not obstruct the free movement of natives to their own region. This is why passwords have to be handed out immediately, and why natives must be removed from the banlist immediately if they are ejected (something that may be necessary, and is allowed within bounds of reason, for an invader delegate to maintain control of the region).
Correct.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator