NationStates Jolt Archive

My main nation got deleted about 100 minutes ago and I don't have a clue why. I would like ask for moderation and possibly an explanation because I believe that there has to be a good reason for deleting my nation which was delegate.

I haven't:
been inactive
used a bad flag
used a bad motto
spammed a messageboard
recruited in non-feeder regions
Please tell me why this has happened, I'm shaking all over now.

My main nation was "Orioni" and had been delegates for 200 days.

Note: I didn't handle this particular case.

It appears that you were linked to a nation that was deleted for impersonating NationStates Moderator and/or Administrative staff. Impersonating game officials is an infraction that leads to immediate deletion with no warning, and often leads to deletion of main nations if the impersonating nation in question was a puppet.

I know of this and would like to request a copy of the telegram my puppet sent. This is the only evidence on which my deletion is based and I don't have a copy. This telegram is quite crucial, as evidence and for a statement to my region.

I know of this and would like to request a copy of the telegram my puppet sent. This is the only evidence on which my deletion is based and I don't have a copy. This telegram is quite crucial, as evidence and for a statement to my region.

I don't have the record personally, who did you send the telegram to? If they haven't deleted it, I'll see what I can do.

I don't have the record personally, who did you send the telegram to? If they haven't deleted it, I'll see what I can do.The telegram was sent to all the nation who endorsed the invader-delegate. The current defender-delegate has already kicked these nations, so it will be quite hard to find out who they were but I still would like to request a copy. Someone somewhere must have one..

I didn't check all of the telegram boxes of nations ejected from region 'urbanites', but I did find two versions of the telegram you sent out.

Received by "ei_cool_guy":
From: Th world as we know it
Withdraw your endorsement from 'Atlantian Warriors'. This nation is an invader and will destroy the region. You won't be safe with him as delegate!
That's legal.

Received by "ethicists", "chiefdogg3", and "i_am_hated":
From: Th world as we know it
Withdraw your endorsement from 'Atlantian Warriors'. This nation is an invader and will destroy the region. You won't be safe with him as delegate! If the moderators find out your nation will be deleted!!
That's not legal.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

That does however look like one strike. What happened to two strikes and you're out?

That does however look like one strike. What happened to two strikes and you're out?
For most offenses, it's two strikes.

Some offenses are so severe that a deletion-without-warning is warranted:

Obscene/malicious/defamatory/threatening national name.
Region griefing (typically violations of the invasion rules: usually mass-ejection or keeping a native on the banlist).
Posting extremely obscene images (goatze and tubgirl come to mind).
Impersonating a NationStates or Jolt official.
Explicitly threatening to kill another player in real life.


There might be a few others that I can't remember off the top of my head.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

From: Th world as we know it
Withdraw your endorsement from 'Atlantian Warriors'. This nation is an invader and will destroy the region. You won't be safe with him as delegate! If the moderators find out your nation will be deleted!!

I might be completely wrong, but is it possible the the sentence is just wrongly formulated?

He might destroy the region, and when a moderator finds out that you endorsed him, you might get deleted too!!

As someone who's native language is not English, I understand that people make mistakes like that. If you look at it from my side of the fence, it might not be such a big offence. Just a very odd, but fatally wrong formulated sentence. ;)
Chances are, that that is what he meant.

I don't think if you know this, but the nations that were endorsing the invader-delegate and thus received one of those two telegrams were aiding someone who was planning to grief the region (which is illegal (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/00476/page=faq#etiquette)). This is what the invader-delegate (Groznia, now U75 I believe) posted in the WFB: Today is a Glorious Day for all of Invader Kind! Today, I, Groznia officially declare my invasion of Urbanites and dedicate it to The DEN. TITO be warned, every half hour a native shall be ejected until the occupation of DEN ends.
If it does not then Urbanites shall end. You have 24 hours to comply. I am not a bluffing man and I no longer care if I am deleted, I do thiNow all the nations who were endorsing this invader-nation risked to be deleted themselves as well, right? "An invader who endorses a delegate that then griefs the invaded region is not automatically slated for deletion UNLESS evidence is found that the endorser was aware of the invader delegate's intent." (source (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=321528))

I ask that you now read my telegram again, considering the information I have now provided you with.
From: Th world as we know it
"Withdraw your endorsement from 'Atlantian Warriors'. This nation is an invader and will destroy the region. You won't be safe with him as delegate! If the moderators find out your nation will be deleted!!"
Sincerely,
Orioni

If the moderators find out your nation will be deleted!!

Note that Orioni seems to be talking about moderaters in the third person. Impersoning a moderator is like when someone would threaten to delete a nation himself.

Note that Orioni seems to be talking about moderaters in the third person. Impersoning a moderator is like when someone would threaten to delete a nation himself.

He's using us as a weapon in an invasion/defense. That's definitely not acceptable.

Note that Orioni seems to be talking about moderaters in the third person. Impersoning a moderator is like when someone would threaten to delete a nation himself.

In my opinion as a dutch speaking person, (like Orioni)...I think Orioni was just saying, "dont endorse that guy or you will be deleted for doing that!"

(Orioni didnt say that she/he would personnaly do this.)

Like Puppet nr 784523 said, Orioni was not talking in the first person.
Dont forget not all of the NS nations speak English fluently.

Succes Orioni met je strijd...

That telegram is enough to delete someone who is a delegate for 200 days with over 80 endorsements making his region a great place for 250 people?

Just like that?

That telegram is enough to delete someone who is a delegate for 200 days with over 80 endorsements making his region a great place for 250 people?

Just like that?

When applying the rules we don't really distinguish between a nation with a population of 50 million living in The Pacific and a nation who's got a population of 2 billion and is delegate of a nation with over 500 nations.
In some cases it may be taken into account, but this is one of those abuses that just isn't tolerated.

If the moderators find out your nation will be deleted!!
On another note, if I see a nation with a swastikaflag, and I tell 'm that's not allowed, and I say "If the moderators find out your nation will be deleted!!".
Am I then impersonating a moderator?

He's using us as a weapon in an invasion/defense. That's definitely not acceptable.

Okay, we can fight with words, but where is the proof for this?
This could also be interpretated as "a friendly warning". not as "a weapon"
And yes, you are wright, I dont have the proof for this neither.

In my humble opinion A person is guilty when proven so...

He was just warning a fellow nation, and by talking about the moderators in the third person, he was simply warning the person. Not impersonating a moderator. The mention that he was just doing that to overthrow a native delegate is just speculation.
The same delegate was stating in the factbook that he was ejecting a native every half hour, as revenge on what happened in The Den, because Urbanites is an ally of TITO!

Myrth, the question you must ask yourself is howmuch damage did that telegram do and howmuch damage are you doing right now by deleting orioni's nation.

Did orioni break any rules in the past? Did Orioni ever get a warning?

There are already power hungry people trying to take over the region.

Its good that you have those rules and that you 'punish' those who break them. But dont forget what the purpose is of those rules.

Please reconsider your decision.

Way too literally taken and way too harsh a punishment for not doing what is being stated. I speak english and at first and third glance couldn't interpret it as that. . . . extreme F- for that one....

(that's eff-minus, as in the lowest made up grade you can get, just so the dash doesn't get misinterpreted.. hehehehe) sorry had to. (checking telegrams now..)

.....

In a case such as this, how the evidence is interpreted is crucial. Now, I myself read those telegrams as Orioni warning nations and trying to convince them to not support a nation that was promising to break the rules. I did not read it as Orioni actually attempting to impersonate a Moderator.

While this is certainly up to people's interpretation, I think that there is at least the possibility that Orioni is not guilty of impersonating a Moderator, and that this decision, in all fairness, should be re-examined by a/the Mod in light of this.

I don't read it as impersonating a moderator, I read it as using us as a weapon. Just about as bad.

In that case my point still applies. Just change "impersonating a moderator" to "using mods as a weapon"... :)

This decision has disrupted our entire region and it's now more or less in chaos.

Did you consider the possibility that this might have been a measure of the invaders to destroy the efforts of the defenders?

I'm all behind the rules of nationstates. But in this case there should have been another form of punishment. Even if orioni deserved a punishment (and I stress "IF") you should've considered the fact that an entire region with more than 200 nations was at stake.

I read it as orioni trying to warn someone that his/her actions might result in losing his/her nation.

Its not a weapon, its a shield.

Exactly..

I don't read it as impersonating a moderator, I read it as using us as a weapon. Just about as bad.

And I read this as a warning.

Btw..."everyone" knows that moderators are "neutral"
So, how can you use "neutral moderators" as a weapon?

And I read this as a warning.

Btw..."everyone" knows that moderators are "neutral"
So, how can you use "neutral moderators" as a weapon?

"If you don't do xyz I'll get the moderators to delete you/kick you from the UN/ban you from nationstates."

Do you have any idea how often we see that?

Or how about nation A baits nation B into flaming A just so A can report B to the mods to get B deleted.

Or how often we see that one?

People are always trying to use us as weapons and we deal harshly with those who do.

So rule obeying players can not state that they have the mods on their sides, because that might be taken the wrong way?

Since this is a serious case, and since it could cause a precedent, It is my opinion that the moderators should overlook the deletion of the main nation of Orioni.
It is indeed a bad thing to impersonate the moderators, or even use them as a weapon. But "use a moderator as a weapon" has absolutely no strict definition it ought to be handled with care. If you want to make a deletion on that, in my eyes it need to be well proven, in any case the nation should be contacted to find out the real reason of the stated message. When in doubt, there is still one principle, not guitly till proven.

that's it, I hope I made myself quite clear, and I hope I gave a fair view on this matter, but it is not the meaning to offend anyone, especially the mods. But if in one's eyes a moderator does something not well funded, it is a nations right to stand against that, but it has to be in a non-harmfull way, and trying to offend nobody.

I hope it is clear, English is not my mothertongue

"If you don't do xyz I'll get the moderators to delete you/kick you from the UN/ban you from nationstates."

Orioni didn't said that, you know that, it isn't stated in the telegram.

Withdraw your endorsement from 'Atlantian Warriors'. This nation is an invader and will destroy the region. You won't be safe with him as delegate! If the moderators find out your nation will be deleted!!

Let me refrase this:
The nation you're endorsing, 'Atlantian Warriors' is a griefer. I advise you to un-endorse him, otherwise you could get in trouble.

An invader destroying a region, is in fact the very definition of "griefing". And I know of several cases where nations endorsing a griefer-delegate have been deleted too. Thus, this is a valid warning.

"If you don't do xyz I'll get the moderators to delete you/kick you from the UN/ban you from nationstates."

Do you have any idea how often we see that?

Or how about nation A baits nation B into flaming A just so A can report B to the mods to get B deleted.

Or how often we see that one?

People are always trying to use us as weapons and we deal harshly with those who do.

okay...i dont know, as I am not a moderator.
But I can Imagine that there are nations who "use" this and "abuse" this.

So, My conclusion is that we are "ALL numbers" now?

Okay, ...-->no discussions, no questions asked....--> nice to know. Point finalle.

(Ostendt)

actually, i have to agree..
from reading what has been posted here, i believe orioni just tried to give the endorsers a fair warning, i too have seen it before that endorsers of a griefing invader delegate were kicked out the UN or deleted. of course, his way of phrasing it was not very well thought through, but i doubt he intended to impersonate admin/mods...

The invader delegate in question, U75, was in violation of two things: intent to grief, and UN multiying. I filed the mod report against his other UN nation, Honorable Metzler, myself. Orioni showed the obvious evidence of U75's intent in the WFE of Urbanites.

"If the moderators find out your nation will be deleted!!"

Nowhere in that statement does it say that Orioni WOULD tell the mods. It only says IF. That would imply that Orioni did not intend for the endorser to get deleted. Rather, it was a warning of what would occur if the endorser continued supporting a nation that was blatantly about to grief a region, and "didn't care" if he was deleted. And for the record, the actions of his other UN nation (Honorable Metzler) caused the decimation of the region Minnesota.

I implore the moderators to reconsider their actions in this case, and reinstate the nation of Orioni.

As someone who does speak English as a first language(within natural languages, the only language, but that's another story), I can see how that *might* be construed as "using the mods as a weapon", but I also see how even I could make such a bad phrasing. His phrasing was bad, yes. But it was an honest mistake.

-Def

Did Orioni send this telegram to anyone else in that region and was it, too, reported?

I would think if Orioni sent it to more than one nation, then, it might be a gesture of warning them of the rules, as most griefers don't know the rules or follow them, properly.

I see this a lot where people will only report these violations when an invasion/defense is taking place in order to max out the casualties on both sides... which, to me, is what appears to have happened here.

It's a shame that both sides lose out in an aspect of NationStates, which is, after all, just a game.

I can definitly understand someone who doesn't speak English as a first language making that mistake.

Did Orioni send this telegram to anyone else in that region and was it, too, reported?

I would think if Orioni sent it to more than one nation, then, it might be a gesture of warning them of the rules, as most griefers don't know the rules or follow them, properly.

I see this a lot where people will only report these violations when an invasion/defense is taking place in order to max out the casualties on both sides... which, to me, is what appears to have happened here.

It's a shame that both sides lose out in an aspect of NationStates, which is, after all, just a game.

Three nations were cited by Cogitation as the recipients of the telegram in question, and he stated that he hadn't checked the telegrams of every nation ejected from Urbanites.

Three nations were cited by Cogitation as the recipients of the telegram in question, and he stated that he hadn't checked the telegrams of every nation ejected from Urbanites.

What I was trying to get to was whether or not all three of these nations reported it or not?

I really think that the nation in question just made an error and a friendly warning. Please rethink your choice, mods.

This really seems to me to be an overreaction to Orioni's telegram. Clearly there is a language issue involved here, and clearly Orioni was not attempting to threaten anyone.

It wasn't a matter of using moderators as a weapon, nor a shield for that matter. It was a warning, that they are become a party to a griefing. Clearly, that was the case.

Over a misunderstanding of language, Orioni has been deleted without warning, and her region thrown into chaos. I would ask that the ruling be reconsidered, and orioni restored.

I must say that I disagree with the action of the mods in this case. I know that you guys handle a lot of cases, and there's a lot of immature n00bs out there that like to abuse the system. I know that you guys would like to err on the side of caution. However, this is getting a bit paranoid. What Orioni wrote is a clarification of NS rules to those endorsing the delegate.

Mods, I ask you: Is the statement in question false? Because if Orioini was not lying, then you have just deleted a nation for telling the truth. That is a grave travesty, in my opinion. Shall we no longer give advice for fear of deletion?

Clearly there is a language issue involved here, and clearly Orioni was not attempting to threaten anyone.
Clearly, that was the case.

Over a misunderstanding of language, Orioni has been deleted without warning, and her region thrown into chaos. I would ask that the ruling be reconsidered, and orioni restored.

I hear what you all are saying, but please consider this:

CLEARLY, we moderators read this in one particular way, which Salusa has explained. "IF you do X, the moderators will delete you!" That does have the connotation of using us as a truncheon.

This statement is untrue simply because no one can speak for the moderators except, well, the moderators.

As for there being a problem in the language, the telegram was sent in grammatically correct English and had a particular message understood in precisely the same way by native speakers of that language. There was no ambiguity in what was said. "The moderators MIGHT decide to delete you for rulebreaking," is worlds apart from the statement made.

The argument I am seeing here is akin to saying, "Well, he SAID he wanted chocolate ice cream, but what he MEANT was he wanted vanilla."

We can only judge on what the actual words said, not on revisions after the fact.

Quite to the contrary: if there was no ambiguity, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I hear what you all are saying, but please consider this:

CLEARLY, we moderators read this in one particular way, which Salusa has explained. "IF you do X, the moderators will delete you!" That does have the connotation of using us as a truncheon.

This statement is untrue simply because no one can speak for the moderators except, well, the moderators.

As for there being a problem in the language, the telegram was sent in grammatically correct English and had a particular message understood in precisely the same way by native speakers of that language. There was no ambiguity in what was said. "The moderators MIGHT decide to delete you for rulebreaking," is worlds apart from the statement made.

The argument I am seeing here is akin to saying, "Well, he SAID he wanted chocolate ice cream, but what he MEANT was he wanted vanilla."

We can only judge on what the actual words said, not on revisions after the fact.

Orioni said, "If the moderators find out your nation will be deleted!! " In the first place, what is wrong with this statement if it is true ? In the second place, it is a warning, not a threat.

What Salusa said was "If you don't do xyz I'll get the moderators to delete you/kick you from the UN/ban you from nationstates." And that is not what orioni said, nor implied.

If the moderators find out your nation will be deleted!!

Since the nation in question is not a moderator, they cannot make this statement.

I'm afraid that the only reason this is still being discussed is because no one wants to accept the reasoning behind the ruling, not because it is ambiguous.

so did the moderators delete the other nation in question? and was he/she doing something that could have got the nation deleted?

So if the guy who got orioni's telegram replies to orioni saying: "hey orioni, if the mods see this, YOU will be deleted."

He would be telling the truth, so did orioni.

Take a step back and look at what you just did mods:
You gave someone death sentence for jay walking.

The invader got what he want, chaos and the possibility to take over.

Its like smacking down a burglar, he will sue you for it.

Since the nation in question is not a moderator, they cannot make this statement.

Ofcourse he can make this statement, because he trusts that you moderators will apply the rules.

Can I not make the following statement to someone in my country: "If you kill that person, you will go to jail".

Im no judge but still I can make that statement.

Ripped straight from the NationStates FAQ:
Nations that rort the UN in this way will be expelled and prevented from re-joining. If you do it with multiple nations, they'll all be deleted, including your main nation. If you're especially annoying, you'll be banned from making any new nations, too. But don't make me do that.
So would that be considered a threat? :rolleyes:

Since the nation in question is not a moderator, they cannot make this statement.

I'm afraid that the only reason this is still being discussed is because no one wants to accept the reasoning behind the ruling, not because it is ambiguous.

So if I state "If the moderators find out that Japaica is back, his nation will be deleted", I am making a deletable offence?

Or if somebody posts goatse or tubgirl, heaven forbid?

Since the nation in question is not a moderator, they cannot make this statement.

I'm afraid that the only reason this is still being discussed is because no one wants to accept the reasoning behind the ruling, not because it is ambiguous.

One of the reasons this is still being discussed is because nations want to be sure that they donot make any comments, do not any warning wich for they could get deleted.

When I state to another region; If you still keep your second nation in the UN, the mods would delete your nations.
Can I be deleted for that?

I do think there is a big difference between impersonating a mod or use them as a weapon and what happened in this particular case.

But henceforth, I like to add that it is very childisch of the nations who recieved this telegram to report this to the moderators. And yes, I do understand in a way the reasoning the moderators make in this case, but I have to add that that reasoning is not clear in the ruling. Perhaps it is better to indeed adapt tha ruling, and explain here in a way understandable for all what the ruling is exactly about.

The message was a clear attempt to gain an advantage in a regional conflict by using moderators as a weapon.
There's a difference between '____ is against the rules.' and 'The moderators will delete you if you don't do what I say!'
Regardless of whether it was correct or not, it was still an attempt to gain one's own way by using moderators as a weapon. This is something that has become an increasing problem recently, and will not be tolerated.

The message was a clear attempt to gain an advantage in a regional conflict by using moderators as a weapon.'

Regardless of the decision the moderators made or not, nobody can assume the intent of Orioni's message, and I wish everyone would step back and remember that.

The mods have obviously no idea haw hard this game is for people who speak broken English, with rules like that. A person has to formulate his/her sentences on such a way, that s/he doesn't trip over his/her own tongue. He was just warning a player that he might be deleted, if that other nation keeps on endorsing a griefer. Nothing more than that. His English isn't that good, so he decided to formulate it as easy as possible. Where is that rule that you can't want a nation about a pending deletion, because you might get deteled yourself? I'll think twice if I ever want to help a mod catch bad guys. My English isn't that good either. This is making players paranoid.

I understand why the mods did this, but give the guy a break, please?

The mods have obviously no idea haw hard this game is for people who speak broken English, with rules like that. A person has to formulate his/her sentences on such a way, that s/he doesn't trip over his/her own tongue. He was just warning a player that he might be deleted, if that other nation keeps on endorsing a griefer. Nothing more than that. His English isn't that good, so he decided to formulate it as easy as possible. Where is that rule that you can't want a nation about a pending deletion, because you might get deteled yourself? I'll think twice if I ever want to help a mod catch bad guys. My English isn't that good either. This is making players paranoid.

Because judging by the situation, and judging by other telegrams sent by this person, it was decided by the moderator handling the case and by a NationStates Admin that it was an attempt to use the moderators as a weapon in a regional conflict.
There really is nothing more that needs to be said.
The last line of appeal is admin@nationstates.net