NationStates Jolt Archive

The concept of Authority in a system is that the people support it, or have no opinion of the authority in question. It seems in the last day we have entered an authoritarian mode on this forum. Why should people respect a faceless moderator’s decision? They shouldn't. Authority exists to be questioned and therefore I recommend keeping moderators accountable, and that each moderator must receive endorsements from nation states in order to retain their authority. I'm not saying this will happen, or even would be the best thing to happen. In the spirit of a political game; why not add a little spice to the official communication channels ie.(forums).

What do you think ?

If you’re a moderator reading this, deleting it or locking will identify the depth of your insecurity immediately, and be an announcement that you don't believe you can justify your stance at any given time.

Don't be silly. This is Max's site and he decides who he wants to help him run it. There are loads of other internet forums out there, if you dislike this one so much.

These threads go in Moderation.

Unfree People
Forum Moderator

There's prolly some "contract" we abide by that makes us subject to the M0ds when we started playing NS, which is how they justify their authority.

Whatever the case, in before a possible lock ;p

[Moderator Edit - Cogitation] The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation Semi-Official Stamp of Approval [/modedit]

When you run your own site, I promise, we won't tell you how to do it.

Bottom line really is, if you have that much of a problem with the staff who run the game, then don't play it.

And to answer why should we respect a faceless moderators decision?

Because we want to play the game and Max chose them as they have what it takes to make an important decision.

Actually, I think that a non-binding mod election or mod ratings system would be a good idea. Max and the admin won't have to abide by the results, but it'll give them a good idea on how the mods are perceived by the players. the same system that is used to detect UN multis can be used to ensure that each player only votes once.

By the way, we're not telling you how to run the site, we're just giving suggestions on how to make it better.

There's prolly some "contract" we abide by that makes us subject to the M0ds when we started playing NS, which is how they justify their authority.

Whatever the case, in before a possible lock ;p

[Moderator Edit - Cogitation] The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation Semi-Official Stamp of Approval [/modedit]
Absolutely correct! We have a winner! :D

Seriously, NationStates.net is the private property of Max Barry. To create a nation, you had to agree to the Terms and Conditions of NationStates, and the T&C states that you have to abide by the site rules as laid out by Max Barry. Ultimately, the choice of who enforces those rules lies with Max Barry; he has the final say because it's his game, his rules, his private property.

"Think about it for a moment."


Actually, I think that a non-binding mod election or mod ratings system would be a good idea. Max and the admin won't have to abide by the results, but it'll give them a good idea on how the mods are perceived by the players. the same system that is used to detect UN multis can be used to ensure that each player only votes once.

By the way, we're not telling you how to run the site, we're just giving suggestions on how to make it better.
If you have concerns or complaints about moderator conduct, then you can send an E-mail to admin@nationstates.net


--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Heh, I remember in the months before and after I started Modding, there were dozens of nomination and vote threads...let's just say, some of the most popular nominations by players were...intriguing. There are times when the popular candidate is not the best man for the job. And indeed the owner of the site is under no obligation to change the current system, which has worked so well so far.

Tactical Grace
Game Moderator

Terms and Conditions; http://www.nationstates.net/pages/legal.html

Absolutely correct! We have a winner! :D

Seriously, NationStates.net is the private property of Max Barry. To create a nation, you had to agree to the Terms and Conditions of NationStates, and the T&C states that you have to abide by the site rules as laid out by Max Barry. Ultimately, the choice of who enforces those rules lies with Max Barry; he has the final say because it's his game, his rules, his private property.

"Think about it for a moment."



If you have concerns or complaints about moderator conduct, then you can send an E-mail to admin@nationstates.net


--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

I agree, but I still think that what I proposed was a good idea:

Non-binding mod elections - alllows Max/admin to see who the players believe should be made a mod

mod ratings - allows Max/admin to see how mods are perceived by the players.

The keyword here is non-binding, which means that Max and the admin would not have to abide by the results.

Heh, I remember in the months before and after I started Modding, there were dozens of nomination and vote threads...let's just say, some of the most popular nominations by players were...intriguing. There are times when the popular candidate is not the best man for the job. And indeed the owner of the site is under no obligation to change the current system, which has worked so well so far.

Tactical Grace
Game Moderator

I agree, but once again, it's non-binding. Yes, Max is under no obligation to change the current system, but if and when the majority of the players think he should, then he should.

Also, you don't have to make whoever is nominated or elected a mod.

But I guess I'm thinking too much of Wikipedia, which is quite "democratic" in this aspect.

By the way, Tactical Grace. I keep thinking that you're a girl named Grace.

Terms and Conditions; http://www.nationstates.net/pages/legal.html

Well I don't know what country you’re from, I'm from Canada and contracts and terms like this are void. Warning labels and terms and conditions that are stated the way that pages legal format goes are not binding in Canada. So since my computer and I are in Canada I am not bound by your legal terms.

Now that’s out of the way some issues I have that you might answer are...

Did you move this thread from the general so no one would read it? It seems as though only one non-moderator has commented on my thread. Maybe if you left in the general it would get more traffic, and in turn increase the number of people who may read it. Are you afraid of people reading this article?

Two moderators told me in this thread that if I didn't like their decisions I shouldn’t play the game. Sounds a lot like, "we're taking out toys and going home!”. If you don't want people to play your game why don't you slip a thread into the high traffic General forum saying “like it or leave it”?

You proved my point at the bottom of my post, sending an article to the great abyss of cyberspace to be beaten down by administration proves the depth of Moderation insecurity. You also prove that you can't stand behind yourself because the General forum is for anything, and your immediate need to send this to the cyber graveyard that is this administration forum.

Has Max Berry met all of you? you say that he choose you all to be administration because of your qualities, and if you’ve only communicated over the internet there is no guarantee an prospective MOD will actually be the person they describe. Has max ever stripped anyone of their Admin privileges. Are you all friends of the Owner, because then his decision would be biased and redeeming qualities come into speculation.

Since only admin will read this, there’s a high chance that one will delete it outright, again proving my point. Respond to this post if you want to argue or add anything, because I’m not mad at any of you, I’m just confused. If anything this is funny.

Well I don't know what country you’re from, I'm from Canada and contracts and terms like this are void. Warning labels and terms and conditions that are stated the way that pages legal format goes are not binding in Canada. So since my computer and I are in Canada I am not bound by your legal terms.My friend, when you made your nation, you checked a little box saying you agreed to those terms, and would abide by any action taken to enforce said terms.

Unfree People
Forum Moderator

By the way, Tactical Grace. I keep thinking that you're a girl named Grace.
LOL, I've been getting that since the first day I started playing. :p

Well I don't know what country you’re from, I'm from Canada and contracts and terms like this are void. Warning labels and terms and conditions that are stated the way that pages legal format goes are not binding in Canada. So since my computer and I are in Canada I am not bound by your legal terms.

Now that’s out of the way some issues I have that you might answer are...

Did you move this thread from the general so no one would read it? It seems as though only one non-moderator has commented on my thread. Maybe if you left in the general it would get more traffic, and in turn increase the number of people who may read it. Are you afraid of people reading this article?

Two moderators told me in this thread that if I didn't like their decisions I shouldn’t play the game. Sounds a lot like, "we're taking out toys and going home!”. If you don't want people to play your game why don't you slip a thread into the high traffic General forum saying “like it or leave it”?

You proved my point at the bottom of my post, sending an article to the great abyss of cyberspace to be beaten down by administration proves the depth of Moderation insecurity. You also prove that you can't stand behind yourself because the General forum is for anything, and your immediate need to send this to the cyber graveyard that is this administration forum.

Has Max Berry met all of you? you say that he choose you all to be administration because of your qualities, and if you’ve only communicated over the internet there is no guarantee an prospective MOD will actually be the person they describe. Has max ever stripped anyone of their Admin privileges. Are you all friends of the Owner, because then his decision would be biased and redeeming qualities come into speculation.

Since only admin will read this, there’s a high chance that one will delete it outright, again proving my point. Respond to this post if you want to argue or add anything, because I’m not mad at any of you, I’m just confused. If anything this is funny.

I am not a mod.

I am reading this.

The mods are pretty fair though, they're just enforcing the rules. There was a whole heck of a lot of flaming going on recently because of today and last night, and the mods took appropriate actions to handle this.

This thread was moved to Moderation because it is about mods and addressed to them. It's about another way to run, or moderate these forums. Therefore, it would belong in moderation.

If Max meets them or not, the qualities displayed in these forums were obviously more than enough evidence to show that they would be responsible with moderator privs. From what I've noticed, they've been around the NS community for quite some time now.

Why would we need new mods though? I don't see them deleting posts just because they don't like someone. In that case I'm sure a lot of posts and people would be removed. You can't always expect the worse from everything.

My friend, when you made your nation, you checked a little box saying you agreed to those terms, and would abide by any action taken to enforce said terms.

Unfree People
Forum Moderator

E-commerce
CBC News Online | September 23, 2004


No international regulations

Internationally, there are no common treaties concerning electronic contracts or transactions, although organizations such as the World Trade Organization are trying to forge them.

For now, any cases involving electronic transactions revert to the rule-of-origin approach.

For the most part, this means that if an individual buys a book from an online business located in Britain, the laws where the business is headquartered apply. This does not favour the consumers, who must familiarize themselves with another country's laws.

However, in Canada, a landmark court case has changed that rule. If a person is located in Canada and the web server or computer is located outside Canada but uses Canadian internet service providers, Canadian law applies.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/internet/ecommerce.html

Guess you have to start banning everone from Canada.

I live spefictly in Ontario so I am bound by the Electronic Commerce Act, of 2000.

Theres at least 5 things that void my obligations to this games online contracts.I'll let you read some if you like

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/00e17_e.htm

Guess you have to start banning everyone from Ontario (1/3 of Canada)

That just means we can't sue you. But you checking that box certainly means you can't sue us for exercising authority on this site.

That just means we can't sue you. But you checking that box certainly means you can't sue us for exercising authority on this site.

Actually doesn't that precident suggest that I can ? Don't worry, I got no money for a lawer ;)

Heh, I remember in the months before and after I started Modding, there were dozens of nomination and vote threads...let's just say, some of the most popular nominations by players were...intriguing. There are times when the popular candidate is not the best man for the job. And indeed the owner of the site is under no obligation to change the current system, which has worked so well so far.

Tactical Grace
Game Moderator

Hmmm.... :D
I sure would like another vote to come up.

*sigh*
I wonder if Max has noticed me.
*insert spy smiley from Invision Free Boards that NS doesn't have*

Actually doesn't that precident suggest that I can ? Don't worry, I got no money for a lawer ;)

I sure ain't no lawyer, but I would be very surprised if a court case concerned with (presumably) selling stock could be used as a precedent with respect to NationStates, as NationStates isn't actually selling anything, but is instead providing services for free.

I am a mod on two other sites (super mod on one, section mod on the other), so feel I can comment on this subject.

A mod election, on a site this size, would be a disaster, purely because it would'nt be choosing the best person for the job, it would just be a popularity contest. Unknown people, who may be able to do the job, would be overlooked, and well known people, who may not be able to do the job, would get a large number of votes, simply because their name is "out there".

A moderator needs to be fair, honest, balanced, able to think on their feet and above all, able to keep calm under pressure. They also need to know the subject matter of their forum inside, outside and backwards. Anyone who has modded, even a small forum, knows how trying the job can get, and hard it is to keep ones temper at times. On this forum, with its size and subject matter (politics), I can only imagine the workload the mods here are under, and believe me, I don't envy them one bit.

Yeah, and they have to put up with our crap. They're taking time out of their day to come here and make sure things aren't getting out of control. They do it for free and, as far as I know, the only rewards will be not having to pay for NS2, but the reasoning behind that is quite simple to grasp.

E-commerce
CBC News Online | September 23, 2004


No international regulations

Internationally, there are no common treaties concerning electronic contracts or transactions, although organizations such as the World Trade Organization are trying to forge them.

For now, any cases involving electronic transactions revert to the rule-of-origin approach.

For the most part, this means that if an individual buys a book from an online business located in Britain, the laws where the business is headquartered apply. This does not favour the consumers, who must familiarize themselves with another country's laws.

However, in Canada, a landmark court case has changed that rule. If a person is located in Canada and the web server or computer is located outside Canada but uses Canadian internet service providers, Canadian law applies.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/internet/ecommerce.html

Guess you have to start banning everone from Canada.

I live spefictly in Ontario so I am bound by the Electronic Commerce Act, of 2000.

Theres at least 5 things that void my obligations to this games online contracts.I'll let you read some if you like

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/00e17_e.htm

Guess you have to start banning everyone from Ontario (1/3 of Canada)

Speaking as a legal student, kid, I'd be amazed if any judge was dumb enough to deal with your case here. Let's be blunt. I posit you are foolish and wrong. Firstly, this site isn't buying or selling *anything*. Secondly, this site is a forum/online-game. Games have rules. If you don't follow rules, you lose.

I remember, oh... way back in last October, I think... someone suggested that I get named a mod. The current staff said 'no', and I said 'no'. But you should count your lucky stars that I wasn't made into a mod, as my policy with this kind of thread would be DoS. And, since going by seniority I'd probably be a game mod... you, too, would be DoS.

Let's be even blunter. On most online games, you and your thread would have been deleted just for asking this question. The fact you aren't proves the system works.

By the way... I'm pretty sure that that law is in no way connected with online games. Your case is weak. Especially since the game is owned by an Australian and on a British server. The mods could remove you and nothing, legally, would need to be done about it. They would be breaking no laws/international treaties.

Speaking as a legal student, kid, I'd be amazed if any judge was dumb enough to deal with your case here. Let's be blunt. I posit you are foolish and wrong. Firstly, this site isn't buying or selling *anything*. Secondly, this site is a forum/online-game. Games have rules. If you don't follow rules, you lose.

I remember, oh... way back in last October, I think... someone suggested that I get named a mod. The current staff said 'no', and I said 'no'. But you should count your lucky stars that I wasn't made into a mod, as my policy with this kind of thread would be DoS. And, since going by seniority I'd probably be a game mod... you, too, would be DoS.

Let's be even blunter. On most online games, you and your thread would have been deleted just for asking this question. The fact you aren't proves the system works.

By the way... I'm pretty sure that that law is in no way connected with online games. Your case is weak. Especially since the game is owned by an Australian and on a British server. The mods could remove you and nothing, legally, would need to be done about it. They would be breaking no laws/international treaties.

Why DoS?
No flaming, serious discussion.
Any player who reads the thread before the DoS would have lowered respect for the mods and the game in general.
Some may call it censorship
Some may even leave the game.

What I meant was that they have lowered respect for the mods and the game in general because they saw a thread deleted for no apparent reason. Right now, it is not against this site's rules to complain about mods or the mod system on the forums, as long as it's done politely (no flaming etc.).

At least that's how it was like the last time I checked.

And I don't see any reason why it should be against site rules to complain about mods or the mod system on the forums, as long as it's done politely. Any flaming etc... against the mods can be dealt with the usual way.

Why DoS?
No flaming, serious discussion.
Any player who reads the thread before the DoS would have lowered respect for the mods and the game in general.
Some may call it censorship
Some may even leave the game.

Reason #2 I'm not a mod.

My policy on that would be 'good'. And you know why? Because the people who would have left the game would probably be the same people who supported this idea. It would have saved me some time in the long-run.

This is a privately owned site, administered by volunteers and a strange little man in a mask (Love ya, Sal). Max can do as he wants with this site. And let's be honest. At various times in history people have called for the following people to be named mods:

Crazy Girl
Francos Spain
Me
Nanakaland (Actually, this one made sense)
AutoMagFreek
Wazzu
Dork Error (cough)

These people all had their niche who would have voted for them, and all of them would be voted for by people who had no idea who they were. Imagine, just imagine, a world where El Caudillo was Mod... goodbye, ADN. Goodbye, FPA. Goodbye, CG.

Hello, total NPO domination... actually, I like that world. The point I'm trying to make is that democracy wouldn't work in this situation, and that the argument would waste valuable moderator time.

Oh, and one more thing. I don't consider this thread to be a "mod bashing" thread, I consider it to be a suggestion to improve the game.

What I meant was that they have lowered respect for the mods and the game in general because they saw a thread deleted for no apparent reason. Right now, it is not against this site's rules to complain about mods or the mod system on the forums, as long as it's done politely (no flaming etc.).

At least that's how it was like the last time I checked.

And I don't see any reason why it should be against site rules to complain about mods or the mod system on the forums, as long as it's done politely. Any flaming etc... against the mods can be dealt with the usual way.

Yeah... as long as there isn't any "U no wut? *Insert Mod here* iz a @*#$in moron!!!!111one!!!"

... then I don't believe there is much of a problem. People can suggest ideas and it's fun to think about things, or suck up to mods, whichever cookie tastes best to you...

But they're still doing their job, regardless. It'll all brush over when people finally get over the elections though. Give it a couple *insert time period here*

Yeah... as long as there isn't any "U no wut? *Insert Mod here* iz a @*#$in moron!!!!111one!!!"

... then I don't believe there is much of a problem. People can suggest ideas and it's fun to think about things, or suck up to mods, whichever cookie tastes best to you...

But they're still doing their job, regardless. It'll all brush over when people finally get over the elections though. Give it a couple *insert time period here*

No, we had the same things last year. On an average of one every two months. I don't think it will last much longer.

Oh, and one more thing. I don't consider this thread to be a "mod bashing" thread, I consider it to be a suggestion to improve the game.

And it's precisely that difference of opinion which makes me loathe humanity. No matter how many people believe a stupid thing, or want a stupid thing, or do a stupid thing, it remains a stupid thing.

I sure hope it doesn't last much longer. You get really sick of logging into to NS and looking at the left and seeing "Kerry is a bladdy bladdy blah" or the same about Bush. Why do people need to be so negative anyway. The game's fun, the game works, or else otherwise we wouldn't all be so addicted to it.

If the system works, don't change it.

Reason #2 I'm not a mod.

My policy on that would be 'good'. And you know why? Because the people who would have left the game would probably be the same people who supported this idea. It would have saved me some time in the long-run.

This is a privately owned site, administered by volunteers and a strange little man in a mask (Love ya, Sal). Max can do as he wants with this site. And let's be honest. At various times in history people have called for the following people to be named mods:

Crazy Girl
Francos Spain
Me
Nanakaland (Actually, this one made sense)
AutoMagFreek
Wazzu
Dork Error (cough)

These people all had their niche who would have voted for them, and all of them would be voted for by people who had no idea who they were. Imagine, just imagine, a world where El Caudillo was Mod... goodbye, ADN. Goodbye, FPA. Goodbye, CG.

Hello, total NPO domination... actually, I like that world. The point I'm trying to make is that democracy wouldn't work in this situation, and that the argument would waste valuable moderator time.

How about Tuesday Heights?

Anyway, if you read my last few posts, I stressed the fact that it should be non-binding. This means that even the people you mentioned above were elected mods, the admin are under no obligation to appoint them as such. So it's not exactly a democracy, its more of an advisory system, where the players suggest, but do not decide, who should be mod.

Also, Wikipedia is a large site, and democracy works well there.
And I believe Slashdot has a mod ratings system, which I also sugested.

And if you're a mod, and you believe that the argument is not worth your time, why not just let the thread die (or ignore it), considering that no flaming is taking place?

While all good ideas, perhaps this isn't the place for them to take action? It would be far too chaotic to take the way everything has been set up for well over a year and then just change it.

No, we had the same things last year. On an average of one every two months. I don't think it will last much longer.

If everyone's polite about it, then it should work out.

How about Tuesday Heights?

Anyway, if you read my last few posts, I stressed the fact that it should be non-binding. This means that even the people you mentioned above were elected mods, the admin are under no obligation to appoint them as such. So it's not exactly a democracy, its more of an advisory system, where the players suggest, but do not decide, who should be mod.

Also, Wikipedia is a large site, and democracy works well there.
And I believe Slashdot has a mod ratings system, which I also sugested.

And if you're a mod, and you believe that the argument is not worth your time, why not just let the thread die (or ignore it), considering that no flaming is taking place?

You'd get no complaints with me about TH becoming a mod. And if the whole thing becomes non-binding, then what's the point? Oh, I no...

"Let's let the peasants think they're people!"

How about no. It's a waste of time, because after the election results are ignored people will complain again.

While all good ideas, perhaps this isn't the place for them to take action? It would be far too chaotic to take the way everything has been set up for well over a year and then just change it.

I don't think that it's going to be too chaotic. The admin will still have the final say. The only difference is that there's going to be more input from players.

You'd get no complaints with me about TH becoming a mod. And if the whole thing becomes non-binding, then what's the point? Oh, I no...

"Let's let the peasants think they're people!"

How about no. It's a waste of time, because after the election results are ignored people will complain again.

Non-binding mod elections are a compromise. No matter what you do, there will always be a number of people who don't like what you're doing. My goal is to minimize that number.

I believe that calmer heads will prevail when electing mods. I mean, I consider you, and many others, to be a "calmer head". If that is true, then whoever is elected will most likely be suited to the job. For example, I think that Tuesday Heights will likely be one of the first to be elected mod, and you have no problems with that.

I believe that calmer heads will prevail when electing mods. I mean, I consider you, and many others, to be a "calmer head". If that is true, then whoever is elected will most likely be suited to the job.

Nice. Let's let the elite vote for us, because we can't vote ourselves. Great democracy there. I like it. :headbang: And false flattery will get you nowhere with me, Sandy.

if you want non-binding elections.. what purpose do they have??
if you got a question with a mod, you can always email an admin..
all the extra fuzz for nothing.. it is good as it is now, and if a mod is not behaving, you bet the admin will get complaints.. and elections reflect who a group of players want as mod.. but this is a site of max, so if he chooses, he has a bit more control over the forum, and how it is being used.

I sure hope it doesn't last much longer. You get really sick of logging into to NS and looking at the left and seeing "Kerry is a bladdy bladdy blah" or the same about Bush. Why do people need to be so negative anyway. The game's fun, the game works, or else otherwise we wouldn't all be so addicted to it.

If the system works, don't change it.
"don't change a winning team"

Nice. Let's let the elite vote for us, because we can't vote ourselves. Great democracy there. I like it. :headbang: And false flattery will get you nowhere with me, Sandy.

So you're saying that the majority of the players are not level-headed? That's like Lenin saying that the masses cannot be counted on to start a revolution.

By the way, I added to my last post.

I sure hope it doesn't last much longer. You get really sick of logging into to NS and looking at the left and seeing "Kerry is a bladdy bladdy blah" or the same about Bush. Why do people need to be so negative anyway. The game's fun, the game works, or else otherwise we wouldn't all be so addicted to it.

If the system works, don't change it.

"The game works, but let's make it better".

So you're saying that the majority of the players are not level-headed? That's like Lenin saying that the masses cannot be counted on to start a revolution.

By the way, I added to my last post.

I'm much, much, much smarter than Lenin. And if Lenin had said that, he would have been right.

Just like I'm right. The idea is silly. It's the silliest idea in the history of silly ideas. It tops such other contenders as, 'Let's go and throw rocks at the peasantry, Tsarina Alexandra' and 'If I give you this gun, you won't shoot me, right?'

if you want non-binding elections.. what purpose do they have??
if you got a question with a mod, you can always email an admin..
all the extra fuzz for nothing.. it is good as it is now, and if a mod is not behaving, you bet the admin will get complaints.. and elections reflect who a group of players want as mod.. but this is a site of max, so if he chooses, he has a bit more control over the forum, and how it is being used.

Like I said, it's a compromise.

I'm much, much, much smarter than Lenin. And if Lenin had said that, he would have been right.

Just like I'm right. The idea is silly. It's the silliest idea in the history of silly ideas. It tops such other contenders as, 'Let's go and throw rocks at the peasantry, Tsarina Alexandra' and 'If I give you this gun, you won't shoot me, right?'

I believe that the majority of the players here are level-headed, and if I was wrong, then the fact that the elections are non-binding acts as a safeguard to prevent the "wrong" person from becoming mod. If I'm right, and the players elected a person well-suited for the job as mod, then I think the admin would go along with the player's choice and make that person mod.

Like I said, it's a compromise.
why compromise when it is working good now?

(alltough i like the idea of one extra mod, elected by the users..)

why compromise when it is working good now?

(alltough i like the idea of one extra mod, elected by the users..)

"It is working good, but it can work better"
And see, you like the idea.

I believe that the majority of the players here are level-headed, and if I was wrong, then the fact that the elections are non-binding acts as a safeguard to prevent the "wrong" person from becoming mod. If I'm right, and the players elected a person well-suited for the job as mod, then I think the admin would go along with the player's choice and make that person mod.

But you are wrong. And because you are wrong, if the Admin decides not to support the people's choice, we'll be up to our armpits in whinging little people complaining about how their democratic rights were trampled on.

NEWSFLASH: NS is a privately owned site. Max Barry's word is law. The Admin are the law. The Mods enforce the law. I sit here and obey the law. The vast majority of people obey the law. It's only the troublesome minority that don't, and if I had been named a mod they would all be gone instantly. I would go through the getting help and moderation pages like a knife through warm butter, hearing arguments for both sides and then deleting the wrongdoer should I see fit.

If TH eventually succeeds in becoming a mod (which he will, more than likely) it will be because of Admin choice, not through any 'popular support'. The majority is always right, you say? Good. The majority is happy with the status quo. Your services aren't needed. :cool: We'll let you know when they are.

But you are wrong. And because you are wrong, if the Admin decides not to support the people's choice, we'll be up to our armpits in whinging little people complaining about how their democratic rights were trampled on.

NEWSFLASH: NS is a privately owned site. Max Barry's word is law. The Admin are the law. The Mods enforce the law. I sit here and obey the law. The vast majority of people obey the law. It's only the troublesome minority that don't, and if I had been named a mod they would all be gone instantly. I would go through the getting help and moderation pages like a knife through warm butter, hearing arguments for both sides and then deleting the wrongdoer should I see fit.

If TH eventually succeeds in becoming a mod (which he will, more than likely) it will be because of Admin choice, not through any 'popular support'. The majority is always right, you say? Good. The majority is happy with the status quo. Your services aren't needed. :cool: We'll let you know when they are.

If that player-elected mod is well-suited for the job (as determined by the admin), why would the admin not support him?

I know all about the newsflash.

But wouldn't it be better if the players had a greater say in administrative matters? The admin don't have to do what they say, but give them a say anyway, and listen to what they have to say.

The majority is happy with the status quo

We should let that come to a vote.
If that is true, then I would be willing to concede defeat.

We should let that come to a vote.
If that is true, then I would be willing to concede defeat.

Good. You contact every single nation in NS, from ___--000-_-- to Zzzzzz, and put them to the question. Go on now! GO! FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY!

Good. You contact every single nation in NS, from ___--000-_-- to Zzzzzz, and put them to the question. Go on now! GO! FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY!

I meant post a poll, which hopefully won't be deleted.
If this has the support of the mods (we'll make less people challenge the mod system) then we'll post a sticked poll in every forum (II, Gameplay, General...)

The question has been answered by the mods already. Could we please get a lock?

I meant post a poll, which hopefully won't be deleted.
If this has the support of the mods (we'll make less people challenge the mod system) then we'll post a sticked poll in every forum (II, Gameplay, General...)

You've had your answer, but you seemed to miss it the first time.

NO.

Folks, please remember that the Moderation forum itself was a compromise. Players wanted Mod elections and so forth. [violet] said no, but created the Moderation forum as to give players a forum to raise objections and ask questions about how things were done. Granted, this was over a year ago, but the fact still remains that this forum is the compromise.

I see no particular reason to lock this, as I'm sure it will die down on its own, and it hasn't devolved into flaming or anything of the sort.

If you’re a moderator reading this, deleting it or locking will identify the depth of your insecurity immediately, and be an announcement that you don't believe you can justify your stance at any given time.

Wow, you're a polite one.

And the attitude 'if it ain't broke, keep fiddling with it until it is' isn't one that sits well with me.

So it's not exactly a democracy, its more of an advisory system, where the players suggest, but do not decide, who should be mod.

It will also quickly become a way for players who have an axe to grind to express their views in as hurtful and hateful a way possible. Does it not seem evident that the majority of persons who "hate" a particular mod, or mods in general, are usually the ones who have a difficult time in obeying the rules and/or treating other posters with a modicum of civility? It is only in a small number of cases that I can recall that those angry about a moderator's judgment were not, in fact, the poster and/or his friends, whose abusiveness towards others was only outstripped by his sense of entitlement to be abusive.

Think of the forums as an analogy of a private home. You're welcome to swing by and chat with the owner and the other residents and guests. Now, if you start calling his other guests losers and idiots, what is the homeowner going to do? Let you continue to abuse and upset others? Or will he ask you to stop, then tell you to stop, then tell you to go home if you continue?

That's what's going on here, folks. We ask you, we tell you, then we boot you if you don't stop being abusive.


Also, Wikipedia is a large site, and democracy works well there.
And I believe Slashdot has a mod ratings system, which I also sugested.

This is neither Wikipedia nor Slashdot, however -- and I have seen the lovely tactics some people have at Wikipedia like inserting porn into encylopedia entries and messing up the pages. You can't say it's perfect and/or that everyone acts like angels there.

And if you're a mod, and you believe that the argument is not worth your time, why not just let the thread die (or ignore it), considering that no flaming is taking place?

Ah, but there is the point. When there is flaming, when people spam off-topic in a roleplay, and when people violate the TOS, we take action.

By the way... I'm pretty sure that that law is in no way connected with online games. Your case is weak. Especially since the game is owned by an Australian and on a British server. The mods could remove you and nothing, legally, would need to be done about it. They would be breaking no laws/international treaties.

?????And this all means what to me? If you were to read carefully, you would see that they claimed that by my checking the "I agree" button that I agree to the blanket legal terms they give. The Acts and laws I provided in my example are at the time the only laws bounding my actions on the internet, you being a law student you would know that since there Is no real law to deal with this, that my responsibility would become case law, and seeing as existing laws state quite clearly that all electronic contracts must exist in paper form and be endorsed by my personal signature...You are wrong.

As for your recommending that I simply be deleted along with my thread...seriously, you identify yourself as being as ignorant and SELF INFLATED as anyone sitting all alone at their computer can get.

Seeing as you’re not a moderator your comments seem all and all pretty void

?????And this all means what to me? If you were to read carefully, you would see that they claimed that by my checking the "I agree" button that I agree to the blanket legal terms they give. The Acts and laws I provided in my example are at the time the only laws bounding my actions on the internet, you being a law student you would know that since there Is n real law to deal with this, that my responsibility would become case law, and seeing as existing laws state quite clearly that all electronic contracts must exist in paper form and be endorsed by my personal signature...You are wrong. Maybe you should switch over to creative arts seeing as you know so little.

As for your recommending that I simply be deleted along with my thread...seriously, you identify yourself as being as ignorant and SELF INFLATED as anyone sitting all alone at their computer can get.

Seeing as you’re not a moderator your comments seem all and all pretty void

NEXT!


Flamebaiting in Moderation != Good idea.

Well, this is going nowhere, so I guess I'll just finish before a MOD summerily bans me, in asking...who comes up with names like flammebaiting ?

This means Im not argueing with the moderators anymore, I'll still argue regular members.

?????And this all means what to me? If you were to read carefully, you would see that they claimed that by my checking the "I agree" button that I agree to the blanket legal terms they give. The Acts and laws I provided in my example are at the time the only laws bounding my actions on the internet, you being a law student you would know that since there Is no real law to deal with this, that my responsibility would become case law, and seeing as existing laws state quite clearly that all electronic contracts must exist in paper form and be endorsed by my personal signature...You are wrong.

As for your recommending that I simply be deleted along with my thread...seriously, you identify yourself as being as ignorant and SELF INFLATED as anyone sitting all alone at their computer can get.

Seeing as you’re not a moderator your comments seem all and all pretty void

To render the contract void, you'd have to stop playing NationStates. All the time you're using it, you're agreeing to the ToS.

To render the contract void, you'd have to stop playing NationStates. All the time you're using it, you're agreeing to the ToS.

To render the contract void I have to do nothing, since it was "agreed to" here in Ontario, it means nothing. It just means that I clicked a button required to innitiate game play.

I vote for Myrth!
Oh wait........ He is....... :confused:

Well, this is going nowhere, so I guess I'll just finish before a MOD summerily bans me, in asking...who comes up with names like flammebaiting ?

This means Im not argueing with the moderators anymore, I'll still argue regular members.


Your attempts to provoke moderator action by referring to us as summarily banning posters and closing threads is amusing at best. Apparently there are 900,000 nations, so we must be doing something right. ;)

Your attempts to provoke moderator action by referring to us as summarily banning posters and closing threads is amusing at best. Apparently there are 900,000 nations, so we must be doing something right. ;)

Alright, I know i said i wouldn't argue a MOD.....I changed my mind.

Just saying that I have no 100% confidence that a moderator might delete my account.Because theres no reason for me to when this thread has told me to shut up basicly.

Again, sorry for chaging my mind.

To render the contract void I have to do nothing, since it was "agreed to" here in Ontario, it means nothing. It just means that I clicked a button required to innitiate game play.


Most of these laws state that click-through EULAs are non-binding, meaning you can back out of them at any time. However, you'd have to stop playing NationStates to do so. Meaning that we can't launch legal action against you for anything, but you'd have to stop playing NS and never come back.

Most of these laws state that click-through EULAs are non-binding, meaning you can back out of them at any time. However, you'd have to stop playing NationStates to do so. Meaning that we can't launch legal action against you for anything, but you'd have to stop playing NS and never come back.

Alright lets make a compromise. Seeing as I have no "legal" obligations, if you just come out and say that it isn't law at all, but rather "rules",....I can accept that.

Alright lets make a compromise. Seeing as I have no "legal" obligations, if you just come out and say that it isn't law at all, but rather "rules",....I can accept that.

This is all very amusing, sir, but seriously, it's Max Barry's site, and he can do whatever he wants here regardless of where you reside. You're bound by his rules, as governed by international law, regardless once again of where you reside.

Continued breaking of rules on the NS site can lead to legal action, especially if one is banned and continues to frequent the site, as it's trespassing and can be met with legal action.

Simple research of the forum will tell you that in previous cases of said action, legal action is a step that not only can be taken but will be enforced regardless of where said poster resides.

It's quite simple: You play here, you follow the rules here, and if you don't and continue to persist, then, the law will come after you in the RL, not in cyberspace. That's for every web site, not just NationStates.

This is all very amusing, sir, but seriously, it's Max Barry's site, and he can do whatever he wants here regardless of where you reside. You're bound by his rules, as governed by international law, regardless once again of where you reside.

Continued breaking of rules on the NS site can lead to legal action, especially if one is banned and continues to frequent the site, as it's trespassing and can be met with legal action.

Simple research of the forum will tell you that in previous cases of said action, legal action is a step that not only can be taken but will be enforced regardless of where said poster resides.

It's quite simple: You play here, you follow the rules here, and if you don't and continue to persist, then, the law will come after you in the RL, not in cyberspace. That's for every web site, not just NationStates.

I haven’t been noticed that I have broken rules (correct me if i'm wrong), I'm just here debating on this forum that’s here TO DEBATE WITH MODERATORS.

I refer you back to my first post for legality, frankly I’m not going to say this again IN ONTARIO AND CANADA I HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO ANYTHING ON THE INTERNET Unless i break a criminal law (threats ect.) or unless you send Interpol I have no worries. Sorry but the laws where you live have NO IMPACT ON ME, WHATSOEVER.SO LONG AS I LIVE WHERE I DO. International law eh, I wasn't aware such laws on the internet exist. I’m sure they don't.

Seeing as my NS account belongs in property to whomever, I'll follow the rules.

But this debate of legal responsibility and the internet is interesting to see just how many people think the internet applies to everyone in real life.

Some reading if you still disagree
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/00e17_e.htm

This Act is comming later this year, but unless your a Canadain it doesn't help you.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/internet/ecommerce.html

Go read this. Terms and Conditions of Service (http://www.nationstates.net/pages/legal.html)

Go read this. Terms and Conditions of Service (http://www.nationstates.net/pages/legal.html)

Thanks...you probably only read the first and last post of this thread I'm guessing.

Thanks...you probably only read the first and last post of this thread I'm guessing.

Nope, I read the whole thread. And I don't agree with a single thing you said. But the legal thing is off topic regarding this thread.

I haven’t been noticed that I have broken rules (correct me if i'm wrong), I'm just here debating on this forum that’s here TO DEBATE WITH MODERATORS.

Did I once say you broke the rules? No, I simply pointed out the area you wish not to recognize as being the distinction between rules and law here, as applicable on NationStates.

I refer you back to my first post for legality, frankly I’m not going to say this again IN ONTARIO AND CANADA I HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO ANYTHING ON THE INTERNET Unless i break a criminal law (threats ect.) or unless you send Interpol I have no worries. Sorry but the laws where you live have NO IMPACT ON ME, WHATSOEVER.SO LONG AS I LIVE WHERE I DO. International law eh, I wasn't aware such laws on the internet exist. I’m sure they don't.

I suggest you consult a lawyer to help you understand the validity of internet domain.

If a person in Canada is paying a web site, located in Belgium, for example, to peruse an extensive list of child porn, you will be charged with pedophilia in Canada regardless of where you are in the world and where you viewed it from. Yes, this may be an extreme example, but you seem to be under the belief that anything you do on the internet from Canada can't touch you, and I'm sorry, but you're very, very wrong.

Uh... yo. Ex-moderator here to set the record straight.

You'll note in the article you provided that the ruling in question was created when a non-Canadian site violated Canadian law and, as such, was placed in compliance with that law. You'll note that the information in question appears to have been important security information.

I quote:

However, in Canada, a landmark court case has changed that rule. If a person is located in Canada and the web server or computer is located outside Canada but uses Canadian internet service providers, Canadian law applies.

The ruling stems from an Alberta Securities Commission decision. The commission said it could assert jurisdiction over the World Stock Exchange, an offshore online stock site that had broken the province's securities laws. The commission reasoned that although the website was outside the country, the effects were felt in Alberta.

That said, NationStates has done nothing in violation with Canadian law. You were granted ample chances to view this site's Terms of Service, and you are fully within your power to petition those in authority for redress of grievances. As such, Canadians are just as much obligated to obey this site's Terms of Service as anyone else.

I know I'm supposed to be retired... but hell, this was just too inviting. ;)

I know I'm supposed to be retired... but hell, this was just too inviting. ;)

That's how I felt, too! Haha. :p

Reason #2 I'm not a mod.

My policy on that would be 'good'. And you know why? Because the people who would have left the game would probably be the same people who supported this idea. It would have saved me some time in the long-run.

This is a privately owned site, administered by volunteers and a strange little man in a mask (Love ya, Sal). Max can do as he wants with this site. And let's be honest. At various times in history people have called for the following people to be named mods:

Crazy Girl
Francos Spain
Me
Nanakaland (Actually, this one made sense)
AutoMagFreek
Wazzu
Dork Error (cough)

These people all had their niche who would have voted for them, and all of them would be voted for by people who had no idea who they were. Imagine, just imagine, a world where El Caudillo was Mod... goodbye, ADN. Goodbye, FPA. Goodbye, CG.

Hello, total NPO domination... actually, I like that world. The point I'm trying to make is that democracy wouldn't work in this situation, and that the argument would waste valuable moderator time.

Your not exactly high in my book either Roania.

In all seriousness, I don't want to be a mod, don't have time to be a mod, and recognize I am not exactly the best candidate for modship. But I do resent being put on a list amongst some of those people.

Perhaps our views of each other are similar.

However, until I am thrown, flaming and squeeling like a pig out of the Nth story of this BBS I'd highly appretiate it if you would quit the mudslinging.

For my part, I will endeavor not to sling any back.

-TCA

First of all I want to thank the mods for not locking this thread. I realize that mod elections/mod elections will probably not be implemented, but there's no harm in debating it's merits (as long as there is no flaming) as it (hopefully) sharpens our debating skills.

Legal Aspects: Yes, this is a private site: the admin can kick out anyone they want. If you break the rules, the admin can kick you out. However, I believe (although I'm no expert) that legal action cannot be taken against rule breakers. Therefore, I believe that Queensland is right in that the site rules are just that: rules, not laws. Futhermore, even if legal action can be taken, the case would be too trival to be worth anyone's time.

The only legal scenario I envision is if Queensland is IP banned, and he hacks onto the site. However, even then, the case is still relatively trival, as Queensland stands to have no financial gain (NS is a free game), and will likely not wreak havoc on site operations (unless he decides to sabotage the site).

It will also quickly become a way for players who have an axe to grind to express their views in as hurtful and hateful a way possible. Does it not seem evident that the majority of persons who "hate" a particular mod, or mods in general, are usually the ones who have a difficult time in obeying the rules and/or treating other posters with a modicum of civility? It is only in a small number of cases that I can recall that those angry about a moderator's judgment were not, in fact, the poster and/or his friends, whose abusiveness towards others was only outstripped by his sense of entitlement to be abusive.

If flaming mod bashers were truly an minority, then they will be "shot down" by the overwhelming majority of players in both the polls and the forums. They'll be overwhelmed by the rebuttals from other players.

Well I don't know what country you’re from, I'm from Canada and contracts and terms like this are void. Warning labels and terms and conditions that are stated the way that pages legal format goes are not binding in Canada. So since my computer and I are in Canada I am not bound by your legal terms.

Now that’s out of the way some issues I have that you might answer are...

Did you move this thread from the general so no one would read it? It seems as though only one non-moderator has commented on my thread. Maybe if you left in the general it would get more traffic, and in turn increase the number of people who may read it. Are you afraid of people reading this article?

Two moderators told me in this thread that if I didn't like their decisions I shouldn’t play the game. Sounds a lot like, "we're taking out toys and going home!”. If you don't want people to play your game why don't you slip a thread into the high traffic General forum saying “like it or leave it”?

You proved my point at the bottom of my post, sending an article to the great abyss of cyberspace to be beaten down by administration proves the depth of Moderation insecurity. You also prove that you can't stand behind yourself because the General forum is for anything, and your immediate need to send this to the cyber graveyard that is this administration forum.

Has Max Berry met all of you? you say that he choose you all to be administration because of your qualities, and if you’ve only communicated over the internet there is no guarantee an prospective MOD will actually be the person they describe. Has max ever stripped anyone of their Admin privileges. Are you all friends of the Owner, because then his decision would be biased and redeeming qualities come into speculation.

Since only admin will read this, there’s a high chance that one will delete it outright, again proving my point. Respond to this post if you want to argue or add anything, because I’m not mad at any of you, I’m just confused. If anything this is funny.


But are you or are you not a person of your word? Even if the contract "doesn't apply to you", you did agree to it. If it were me I'd keep that agreement. Also, I'm reading this. Not only am I not a mod, I'm a new player. So I guess if I can find it any chimp can. Perhaps it's not that people aren't reading, they could just be choosing not to respond to it. Because it really doesn't directly concern them if they're not mods. After all, it's only the mods' credability you're attacking.

Oh yes, and I meant mod elections/mod ratings, and trivial, not trival.

If a person in Canada is paying a web site, located in Belgium, for example, to peruse an extensive list of child porn, you will be charged with pedophilia in Canada regardless of where you are in the world and where you viewed it from. Yes, this may be an extreme example, but you seem to be under the belief that anything you do on the internet from Canada can't touch you, and I'm sorry, but you're very, very wrong.

Thats not a very good example.Child pornography is a crime in Ontario.But since we're not talking about a crime, there is no recaorse in canada for civil action unless your another Canadian, and you have confomed to the EC Act.

Thats not a very good example.Child pornography is a crime in Ontario.But since we're not talking about a crime, there is no recaorse in canada for civil action unless your another Canadian, and you have confomed to the EC Act.

You are, as I suspected, thoroughly missing the point. If you break the rules here, continue to do so, then, the long arm of the law can - and will - hunt you down and persecute you regardless of what country you reside in.

If you don't want to listen to the moderators and countless players who have been here a lot longer than you, fine, but do us all a favor and search the forums for a player called Nazi Weaponized Virus.

He, too, though the moderator's decisions were rash and uncalled for and that he had legal precedence to go after both them and players, such as myself, the only crime he committed was trespass, which is punishable by the law everywhere.

You asked for an intelligent debate, and you're getting one, however much you don't want to listen to the rest of us that know the way the site works, the law that surrounds it, and that this debate is futile and pointless, because the system works.

I have been keeping up on this entire argument, and it seems like it isn't going anywhere, despite the multiple points brought up by Myrth, Tues. Heights, Liverpool England, and The Ex-SLAGlands.

What you don't seem to realize is that once you agree to specific terms, other rules don't apply. Just because Canada passed such a law, doesn't mean you can go out to all different kinds of websites, and violate their rules. There are ways of still prosecuting you, despite the fact that you can use that law to protect you. (OOC: NS is based in UK, correct?) Therefore, I believe you wouldn't be breaking any Canadian law, it would be as if you were breaking the law within the UK, and in turn, you can be prosecuted by the police in the UK. You clicked that button. You agreed to those terms, which would most likely override the Canadian law.


OOC: I don't think he'll actually get the point numerous people have tried to display. It's probably a good time to lock the thread.

Reason #2 I'm not a mod.

My policy on that would be 'good'. And you know why? Because the people who would have left the game would probably be the same people who supported this idea. It would have saved me some time in the long-run.

This is a privately owned site, administered by volunteers and a strange little man in a mask (Love ya, Sal). Max can do as he wants with this site. And let's be honest. At various times in history people have called for the following people to be named mods:

Crazy Girl
Francos Spain
Me
Nanakaland (Actually, this one made sense)
AutoMagFreek
Wazzu
Dork Error (cough)

These people all had their niche who would have voted for them, and all of them would be voted for by people who had no idea who they were. Imagine, just imagine, a world where El Caudillo was Mod... goodbye, ADN. Goodbye, FPA. Goodbye, CG.

Hello, total NPO domination... actually, I like that world. The point I'm trying to make is that democracy wouldn't work in this situation, and that the argument would waste valuable moderator time.


Me? Mod? I wanted to be a mod the first time I was here at NationStates (March 2003-May 2003), maybe wanted to be a mod the second time at NationStates (November 2003-July 2004), but I'm back and if elected mod, I'd have to decline. I'd never make a good mod. The most obvious reason is that I keep leaving NationStates for a few months and coming back. Then again, I make much more enemies than friends, so I'd never be elected...

I have been keeping up on this entire argument, and it seems like it isn't going anywhere, despite the multiple points brought up by Myrth, Tues. Heights, Liverpool England, and The Ex-SLAGlands.

What you don't seem to realize is that once you agree to specific terms, other rules don't apply. Just because Canada passed such a law, doesn't mean you can go out to all different kinds of websites, and violate their rules. There are ways of still prosecuting you, despite the fact that you can use that law to protect you. (OOC: NS is based in UK, correct?) Therefore, I believe you wouldn't be breaking any Canadian law, it would be as if you were breaking the law within the UK, and in turn, you can be prosecuted by the police in the UK. You clicked that button. You agreed to those terms, which would most likely override the Canadian law.


OOC: I don't think he'll actually get the point numerous people have tried to display. It's probably a good time to lock the thread.

Hmm....isn't Canada technically part of the UK?

Hmm....isn't Canada technically part of the UK?

I believe so...

THUS, bringing me to a new point. Since Canada and the UK are within the same 'Dominion' shall I say...it means that the rule wouldn't necessarily apply to you because of the fact that Canada is technically part of the UK.

Thanks for the reminder Goober!

Listen everyone look up thing called "sovereignty" that means that your authorities cannot charge anyone in my nation for an offence committed in my nation, and since my nation does not prosecute internet related issues as of yet, I CANNOT BE TOUCHED BY ANY OTHER COUNTRIES LAW WHILE I AM IN ONTARIO.

The crown is the figurehead of Canadian power, but she does not have anything to do with Canada, other than appointing the Governor General on the advice of my prime minister, whose laws, she and her lieutenants have to follow. Nice try guys. Gust because you write something under legal "Legal terms" doesn't mean its valid everywhere, otherwise Arab authorities could charge American women from arguing with men or Arabic forums, or some other kooky law. Who knows if the terms are even legal where this games is hosted, because if it is in a Crown nation the may have the common sense to void blanket clauses and liability for internet actions too.

I’m just going finish this by declaring that I will do my best to follow the rules of this game and forum, although they are not currently legally binding where I live.

I’m just going finish this by declaring that I will do my best to follow the rules of this game and forum, although they are not currently legally binding where I live.

Wrong. They are binding where you live. Talk to a lawyer if you don't think we're right, they'll tell you what we've been telling you is correct.

Okay, let's review.

You are not going to be sued for violations of NationStates rules.
You may be deleted for violations of NationStates rules.
If you repeatedly violate NationStates rules, you may be hit with a DEAT-on-Sight order.
If you repeatedly create nations despite being DEAT-on-Sight, you are trespassing on the server space of Max Barry and of Jolt Online Gaming. Trespassing is some form of tort in most countries.
Given that you aren't DEAT-on-Sight, you don't have to worry about getting sued.

Wrong. They are binding where you live. Talk to a lawyer if you don't think we're right, they'll tell you what we've been telling you is correct.

So I guess you also agree that women should watch out for Aribic servers, they could be stoned to death in my nation or the United States. There is no law in my country that condems what I have been talking about, and we do not import forign laws to accodate other nations demands for justice.

The request for Mod elections is rather moot anyway, as puppet voting would be unavoidable and immense, and hence any validity that such elections could hold would be void. It seems that even attempting this would cause problems, since Person A would elect person Person B that Person C hates, and Person C would certainly want to give his/her opinion on why Person B should never be given moderator powers.

The NS Mods chosen have all been involved in NS for a long time, and have proven that no matter how they play the game as a player (role player, invader, defender, NPO enthusiast, etc), they are capable of setting their own opinions about in-game politics aside in order to help enforce game rules. Holding player-based elections would not allow the game staff to choose new Moderators who are capable of the same kind of separation of opinion and job duty of enforcing NS rules.

Katganistan
NationStates Moderator Team
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: A wonderful town... the Bronx is up and the Battery's down...
Posts: 2,704

Love that movie...

See, it doesn't have to do with your country at all. The Terms Of Service are rules that WE require YOU to follow for continued service from NationStates. If you choose not to follow our rules, we have the right to refuse you service, as this is a privatly owned and operated service, provided at no cost to you.

So I guess you also agree that women should watch out for Aribic servers, they could be stoned to death in my nation or the United States. There is no law in my country that condems what I have been talking about, and we do not import forign laws to accodate other nations demands for justice.

That's a really bad example that is completely irrelevent to your initial statement.

There is no law in my country that condems what I have been talking about, and we do not import forign laws to accodate other nations demands for justice.

I think Karma has summed up precisely what we're talking about here. We're talking about internet law, not whether or not as a woman I'll be stoned to death by an Arab because I live in the United States.

Talk to a lawyer, they'll tell you all about internet law, instead of just spouting off what some jargoned website that you've self-diluted to serve your own purpose of being right over being ignorant of the law.

I'm done here. You're beyond my words, and the words of other players and mosd here. Happy gaming.

That's a really bad example that is completely irrelevent to your initial statement.

I’m just defeating you on the issue of legality once and for all. I think a woman signing an Arabic blanket clause under the “I agree” terms, is a prime example of how the internet is still the Wild West however exaggerated it is.

I think Karma has summed up precisely what we're talking about here. We're talking about internet law, not whether or not as a woman I'll be stoned to death by an Arab because I live in the United States.

Talk to a lawyer, they'll tell you all about internet law, instead of just spouting off what some jargoned website that you've self-diluted to serve your own purpose of being right over being ignorant of the law.

I'm done here. You're beyond my words, and the words of other players and mosd here. Happy gaming.

And I clearly said in my earlyer post that I recognize the MODs are pushing this as an issue of Rules, as opposed to TERMS OF LAW that obviously won't apply to me. I don't have to talk to a lawer, because the page of laws regarding the internet in Canada is a page long.

Okay, let's review.

You are not going to be sued for violations of NationStates rules.
You may be deleted for violations of NationStates rules.
If you repeatedly violate NationStates rules, you may be hit with a DEAT-on-Sight order.
If you repeatedly create nations despite being DEAT-on-Sight, you are trespassing on the server space of Max Barry and of Jolt Online Gaming. Trespassing is some form of tort in most countries.
Given that you aren't DEAT-on-Sight, you don't have to worry about getting sued.


One Question, one comment:

If there is a case for trespassing, who would have jurisdiction over the case? Max lives in Australia, servers are in Britain, Queensland lives in Canada. I believe that this site is subject to British law since its servers are in Britain, but I'n not sure what happens if it's not the site itself that is violating the law.

Even if there is a basis for a case for trespassing, wouldn't it be a bit trivial for anyone to pursue this case, considering that Queensland does not stand to have any financial gain, and is not attempting to sabotage or crash the site?

First of all, I don't even think anyone knows what you are arguing about at this point. Second of all, if you think that you are immune to any recourse here, let's just say that we have dealt with requests from Canadian Authorities for requests for information before. I can assure you, that we will more than likely be very helpful when people like that come knocking.

One Question, one comment:

If there is a case for trespassing, who would have jurisdiction over the case? Max lives in Australia, servers are in Britain, Queensland lives in Canada. I believe that this site is subject to British law since its servers are in Britain, but I'n not sure what happens if it's not the site itself that is violating the law.

Even if there is a basis for a case for trespassing, wouldn't it be a bit trivial for anyone to pursue this case, considering that Queensland does not stand to have any financial gain, and is not attempting to sabotage or crash the site?


The easiest thing for us to do is take the issue up with your ISP. They are located in our country, and 99% have Terms Of Service that cover abuse of other websites/services/etc. Once you are off of our system, we could care less what they choose to do with you, whether it simply be removing your service, or taking the matter up legally.

The request for Mod elections is rather moot anyway, as puppet voting would be unavoidable and immense, and hence any validity that such elections could hold would be void. It seems that even attempting this would cause problems, since Person A would elect person Person B that Person C hates, and Person C would certainly want to give his/her opinion on why Person B should never be given moderator powers.

The NS Mods chosen have all been involved in NS for a long time, and have proven that no matter how they play the game as a player (role player, invader, defender, NPO enthusiast, etc), they are capable of setting their own opinions about in-game politics aside in order to help enforce game rules. Holding player-based elections would not allow the game staff to choose new Moderators who are capable of the same kind of separation of opinion and job duty of enforcing NS rules.

First of all, there would be IP checks.

Secondly, the purpose of a non-binding mod election would be:
1) To allow the mods to guage player opinion
2) To allow the players a greater say in running the game.

The elections would not choose new mods. Rather, it would simply tell the admin who the players think should be a new mod.

"What purpose is there to this then?" some people asked. Well, the purpose to this would be to send a message out to the players: "we would love to hear from you" and "we value your input". This would show that the admin does truly care about the average player, rather than the current "if you don't like it, leave" attitude, which is rude and does nothing to improve the game.

I don't have to talk to a lawer, because the page of laws regarding the internet in Canada is a page long.

Then, open a lawbook, because you're clueless about this issue. Once again, I state that we aren't talking about the rules, we're talking about the scope of law that could fall under trespessing on NationStates. You refuse to believe the truth, well, it's there, and you're wrong, no matter where you live.

Then, open a lawbook, because you're clueless about this issue. Once again, I state that we aren't talking about the rules, we're talking about the scope of law that could fall under trespessing on NationStates. You refuse to believe the truth, well, it's there, and you're wrong, no matter where you live.

You must not have looked at the page long legislation, because that page is straght from canadas offical legal text and wording. And the scope of law is always limited to the extent of borders. What if i lived in Sudan where the is no government or law, would I still by guilty there ?Who gets to decide the scope...you ? Your wrong and you keep saying the same thing over and overagain without backing yourself up at all. And since you've already said it, don't bother saying it again, because you'll still be wrong.

Seeing as this is my thread, and I'v really lost interst in both subjects i'v been talking about, can a moderator do me a favor and lock this...Locking this thread will mean one less thread regarding yourselves to monitor, and since No ones budging, we've reached an impass.Thanks - QO

Gee, everyone is so focused on internet legal issues instead of mod elections/mod ratings.

By the way, I support mod ratings as a less controversial way of expressing our feelings towards the mods. This would consist simply of the words "rate this moderator/admin", a pull-down box with 1 to 5 and a "submit" button, and there would be checks to ensure that the results won't be skewed by an individual player. However, this will probably require a change on the part of Jolt, which would probably be hard to achieve even if there is a consesus to do so on NS.

You must not have looked at the page long legislation, because that page is straght from canadas offical legal text and wording.

Once again, Queensland, I don't have to look at the law. I already know what it is, and you can be held liable for trespessing on any website, regardless of where you are located. Period. End of story.

Sandpit, NOBODY CARES ABOUT MODERATOR ELECTIONS. It's not going to happen, so, it's a moot point as another poster so delicately put it.

Once again, Queensland, I don't have to look at the law. I already know what it is, and you can be held liable for trespessing on any website, regardless of where you are located. Period. End of story.

Sandpit, NOBODY CARES ABOUT MODERATOR ELECTIONS. It's not going to happen, so, it's a moot point as another poster so delicately put it.

Even If I was, noone would prosecute me because the leagle system has a real ego when it comes to compromise.And they do NOT respect your laws.

PLEASE LOCK THIS THREAD

Even If I was, noone would prosecute me because the leagle system has a real ego when it comes to compromise.And they do NOT respect your laws.

If you break the law, someone will prosecute you if it's a problem. Egos or not. Justice is served.

Here is an excerpt from My ISP's Acceptable use policy. I'm posting this as it may also be applicable to Queensland.

Acceptable Use Policy
Rogers Yahoo! Hi-Speed Internet Services
Last modified: August 2004

Security
You are responsible for any misuse of the Services, even if the inappropriate activity was committed by a friend, family member, guest
or any other person with access to the Services through your computer or your account. Therefore, you must take steps to ensure that
others do not gain unauthorized access to the Services through any means, including without limitation, wireless networking and wired
networking. The Services may not be used to breach the security of another user or to attempt to gain access to any other person's
computer, software or data, without the knowledge and consent of such person. Additionally, the Services may not be used in any
attempt to circumvent the user authentication or security of any host, network, or account, including without limitation, accessing data
not intended for you, logging into or making use of a server or account you are not expressly authorized to access, or probing the
security of other networks. Use or distribution of tools designed for compromising security, such as password guessing programs,
cracking tools, packet sniffers or network probing tools, is prohibited. You may not disrupt the Services. The Services also may not be
used to interfere with computer networking or telecommunications services to any user, host or network, including without limitation,
denial of service attacks, flooding of a network, overloading a service, improper seizing and abuse of operator privileges and attempts
to "crash" a host. The transmission or dissemination of any information or software that contains a virus or other harmful feature is
also prohibited. You are solely responsible for the security of any device you choose to connect to the Services, including any data
stored on that device. In particular, Rogers recommends against enabling file or printer sharing of any sort. Rogers recommends that
any files or services you do choose to make available for remote access be protected with a strong password or as otherwise
appropriate.

Is this what you're talking about, Karmabaijan?

If you break the law, someone will prosecute you if it's a problem. Egos or not. Justice is served.

Even in that case witch won't happen, I would be grandfathered. Here in Canada we don't just prosecute people because its the right thing to do, people have rights.

And on the guy who just typed in his terms of conditions, if you live in ontario, those terms don't apply to you in a legal way.

More excerpts:

Newsgroups and Online Forums
Messages posted to newsgroups and online forums must comply with the written charters or FAQs for those newsgroups and online
forums.

Violation of Acceptable Use Policy
Neither Rogers nor Yahoo! has an obligation to monitor any content or your use of our networks for violations of this AUP or otherwise;
however, we may monitor or investigate content or your use of our networks, including bandwidth consumption. We may also access,
preserve or disclose information to comply with legal process in Canada or foreign jurisdictions; operate the Services; ensure
compliance with this AUP, the EUA or any additional terms; or protect ourselves, our subscribers and the public. We prefer to advise
subscribers of inappropriate behavior and any necessary corrective action. However, if the Services are used in a way that we, in our
sole discretion, believe violates this AUP, Rogers, Yahoo!, and their respective affiliates, suppliers and agents may take any responsive
actions they deem appropriate. Such actions may include without limitation, temporary or permanent removal of content, cancellation
of newsgroup posts, filtering of Internet transmissions, and/or the immediate suspension or termination of all or any portion of the
Services or your account. Rogers, Yahoo! and their respective affiliates, suppliers and agents will have no liability for any such
responsive actions. The above described actions are not exclusive remedies and Rogers, Yahoo! and their respective affiliates, suppliers
and agents may take any other legal or technical action deemed appropriate. Upon termination of an account, Rogers and Yahoo! are
authorized to delete any files, programs, data and e-mail messages associated with such account. The failure to enforce this AUP, for
whatever reason, shall not be construed as a waiver of any right to do so at any time. You agree that, if any portion of this AUP is held
Rev 08/2004 4
invalid or unenforceable, that portion will be construed consistent with applicable law as nearly as possible, and the remaining portions
will remain in full force and effect. This AUP shall be exclusively governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the
province in which you subscribed to use the Services.

Yes indeed. An email to the abuse line of yahoo with appropriete evidence and your net gets shut off. We've been successful in this before, and do not hesitate for repeat spammers/ban avoiders and the like. And, at the thread starter's request, thread locked.