NationStates Jolt Archive

(Apologies for starting a new thread, but the other thread was locked by the time I finished typing this.)

A small question regarding the ruling in Ethicists, et al. v. Orioni: Is it still permissible to give an idea of the potential punishments for a rule violation?

For example:

* Seconds ago: The Native of Someothernation departed the region for the Rejected Realms.
* Seconds ago: The Griefing Invader of Whatever ejected the Native of Someothernation.
* 1 minute ago: The Native of Somenation departed the region for the Rejected Realms.
* 1 minute ago: The Griefing Invader of Whatever ejected the Native of Somenation.
* 1 minute ago: The Native of OhDearANative departed the region for the Rejected Realms.
* 1 minute ago: The Griefing Invader of Whatever ejected the Native of OhDearANative.

Hello. I see that you have ejected and banned several natives from the region of SomeRegion. Given that failing to immediately unban a native from a region that you have invaded is a major violation of game rules, you and your endorsers risk deletion by the moderators if you do not unban these natives immediately.

Just a cautionary note,
Goobergunchia

Would this "Telegram to Whatever" be within game rules? Obviously the scale of punishments is different for different offenses, and a long-time player will have a general idea of the scale of punishments for various offenses.

(The previous thread (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=381344) has been closed, so I would like to make my statement in here.)

Just for the record: while trying to defend the region 'Urbanites', I sent two different telegrams. After sending version #1, I thought that it might have more effect if a warned the endorsing nations that they could get themselves into trouble, so I sent version #2 to the endorsing nations I hadn't TG'ed yet. Version #1: 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!

Version #2: 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 last sentence was added because I received some intelligence regarding the intentions of the invader they were endorsing. I meant not to impersonate a moderator or administrator, this last sentence (on which my deletion is based) was meant as a warning. I believe this warning to be true, as it seems to have occureded before that nations aiding a griefer can receive this punishment.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Something similar now, regarding this new thread we have here: let's say I notice a multi, and inform both nations via TG that this is forbidden, using a line like.. Withdraw one of your nations from the UN. You are using multiple UN-nations and that is not allowed in NationStates! If the moderators find out your nation will be deleted!!Looks similar, same words. Would a statement like this (also) look like I were trying to impersonate a moderator of administrator?

First, I'll note that this is nothing new. It has always been against the rules to impersonate a site official. Threatening someone with official action is an extension of this.

Second, the important thing is to make it absolutely clear that you are NOT a NationStates Moderator and that you're not threatening them with official action. You've merely been around for a while and you happen to know the rules.

Hello. I see that you have ejected and banned several natives from the region of SomeRegion. The invasion rules ( http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=301703 ) state that you cannot keep a native on the banlist. I'm not a NationStates Moderator, but I have seen the Mods delete invader Delegates for this sort of thing, before. You should probably unban those natives immediately.

If you want, you can ask the Mods yourself by posting in the "Moderation" forum ( http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1231 ) and asking them if what you're doing is legal.

Just a cautionary note,
Goobergunchia

Third, there's a difference between telling someone what the rules are and threatening someone with action. It is our opinion that Orioni was threatening to use us as a weapon.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

seriously coggy, can you read minds? when i was reading the thread, and read the telegrams sal found, my first thought was "okay, nothing wrong with those telegrams, no flaming, just a warning about what might happen.."

i was kinda shocked when i found out orioni was actually deleted over that line..
sure, maybe a little warning, saying make sure to phrase it a bit different a next time, but deleting her main nation over this?

i have told someone before, a griefing delegate who cleared out a region as revenge on some modaction, that he would get deleted if he didn't unban all the nations, would clear the password and then, if no one would report him to moderation, he'd be safe. he did what i asked him, the natives returned, and no one ever reported the griefing.

it was just a friendly warning, no threat, because even though this invader was an old griefing dog, he still was sorta my friend :D

if you can have your nation deleted over phrasing some stuff the wrong way, then would you mind proofreading all the telegrams i'll be sending out? because my native language isn't english, and i know that i happen to phrase stuff the wrong way a lot too..

This deletion has made a whole lot of foreign players paranoid. I noticed that this game is best played if you log in to do your issues once a day, and than get back on whatever you do at school ot somewhere else. Whenever you decide to move around and talk to other members, you risk being deleted by a moderator (Oops, I said it :headbang: )

First, I'll note that this is nothing new. It has always been against the rules to impersonate a site official. Threatening someone with official action is an extension of this.

Second, the important thing is to make it absolutely clear that you are NOT a NationStates Moderator and that you're not threatening them with official action. You've merely been around for a while and you happen to know the rules.



Third, there's a difference between telling someone what the rules are and threatening someone with action. It is our opinion that Orioni was threatening to use us as a weapon.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

Ok, #1 and #2 are clear. Thank you for that. I've before informed people of what rules are, and cautioned them against doing / continuing to do things which I knew could be interpreted by the Moderator team as grounds for some form of mod action. Next time I do this I'll make sure to phrase matters properly and make clear that I'm not a moderator. The risk of the above ruling is that players may get scared to warn each other and instead will not dare informing others of the rules of the game. This case shows that there's definitely a risk when one does so.

I'm not clear on #3 though. I see how the message when taken literally as it is constitutes a threat, but don't see where the interpretation as 'weapon' comes from. The most damaging to do to the invaders in this case was to simply file a report on the invaders as a group, pointing out the publically made intention to grief and sustained endorsements, and let the mods do whatever they decide to do with that. Getting the other invaders to drop their endorsement of the likely-soon-to-be-punished invader delegate has no tactical value I can see... it may even lead to a situation where some invaders 'escape' punishment (if it were to be decided that this is a case where endorsers get punished as well). Also, giving the invaders a heads-up on a likely mod-action against their invasion leader could also cause them to switch control to another nation, actually hurting the natives by possibly prolonging an invasion which seemed about to be finished anyway. So... the effect of asking/demanding dropping endorsements that I see is helping the invader group more than that it hurts them. How is this using the mods as a 'weapon' ? The winner isn't the nation which has the most endorsements right now, but the nation still having the most endorsements tomorrow, and an invasion leader kicked from the UN or DEATed has zero endorsements.

Ballotonia

First, I'll note that this is nothing new. It has always been against the rules to impersonate a site official. Threatening someone with official action is an extension of this.
Manslaughter is an extension of murder, yet they usually don't give the death penalty for it. Even in places where the death penalty is being practiced.
Second, the important thing is to make it absolutely clear that you are NOT a NationStates Moderator and that you're not threatening them with official action. You've merely been around for a while and you happen to know the rules.

Said suggestion is great, and it would have been better before he sent the TGs.

Third, there's a difference between telling someone what the rules are and threatening someone with action. It is our opinion that Orioni was threatening to use us as a weapon.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator
It is the opinion of everyone else that you have given too harsh a punishment, even if Orioni *was* using the mods as a weapon.

As your motto says, "Think about it for a moment". Actually, more than a moment is recommended :D

My opinions are based a great deal upon the tone of the message (yes, this can be a bit harsher against non-native players, but English is the lingua franca of the game. We do what we can though).

So, what I see in each other these:

Version #1: 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!

Completely acceptable.

Version #2: 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!!

Not acceptable. Why? "If the moderators find out your nation will be deleted!!" This sentance is making a declaration of what we will supposedly do if we discover that the nation has endorsed the delegate. It makes no mention of the rules or of the fact that we might not delete the nation in question.

Hello. I see that you have ejected and banned several natives from the region of SomeRegion. Given that failing to immediately unban a native from a region that you have invaded is a major violation of game rules, you and your endorsers risk deletion by the moderators if you do not unban these natives immediately.

Just a cautionary note,
Goobergunchia

Looks good to me. The important things to note in this message: Goob states explicitly what rule the person in question is supposedly breaking and states that this is a major rule, Goob states that they risk deletion by the mods (not that we will delete them, a very important difference), and finally the closing (while not necessary) closes the message with the right attitude.

Hello. I see that you have ejected and banned several natives from the region of SomeRegion. The invasion rules ( http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=301703 ) state that you cannot keep a native on the banlist. I'm not a NationStates Moderator, but I have seen the Mods delete invader Delegates for this sort of thing, before. You should probably unban those natives immediately.

If you want, you can ask the Mods yourself by posting in the "Moderation" forum ( http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1231 ) and asking them if what you're doing is legal.

Just a cautionary note,
Goobergunchia

And now I risk trouble as I critique a message by another moderator ;) Looks good if a bit long. The explicit statement that the sender isn't a Mod is a good way to play it safe as is the link to the rule thread (very nice). Personally, you can make a stronger statement than "I have seen the Mods delete invader Delegates for this sort of thing before" (the comma should be removed anyway). There is really nothing wrong with saying "The Mods have deleted invader ...". And finally, while there is nothing wrong with telling them they can ask the mods for clarification, that really goes without saying, so it isn't necessary.

Withdraw one of your nations from the UN. You are using multiple UN-nations and that is not allowed in NationStates! If the moderators find out your nation will be deleted!!

Actually, not too bad, my biggest issue with it is the last sentance (surprised?). First, we don't always delete nations for multies (in fact, we often don't) so threatening them with deletion is unacceptable. One nice thing here is that unlike in other circumstance where we may give warnings first, we always at least eject nations for multies, so you're a bit safer with strong words here. Perhaps replace your last sentance with "If the moderators find this to be the case, they will eject you from the UN and possibly delete you." I've also clarified that the moderators need to determine themselves that you're multying, not just the sender.

Now, onto a few other matters:

I'm not clear on #3 though. I see how the message when taken literally as it is constitutes a threat, but don't see where the interpretation as 'weapon' comes from. The most damaging to do to the invaders in this case was to simply file a report on the invaders as a group, pointing out the publically made intention to grief and sustained endorsements, and let the mods do whatever they decide to do with that. Getting the other invaders to drop their endorsement of the likely-soon-to-be-punished invader delegate has no tactical value I can see... it may even lead to a situation where some invaders 'escape' punishment (if it were to be decided that this is a case where endorsers get punished as well). Also, giving the invaders a heads-up on a likely mod-action against their invasion leader could also cause them to switch control to another nation, actually hurting the natives by possibly prolonging an invasion which seemed about to be finished anyway. So... the effect of asking/demanding dropping endorsements that I see is helping the invader group more than that it hurts them. How is this using the mods as a 'weapon' ? The winner isn't the nation which has the most endorsements right now, but the nation still having the most endorsements tomorrow, and an invasion leader kicked from the UN or DEATed has zero endorsements.
Not a bad question, but you can threaten people with mod action even when we wouldn't do anything. This often happens by nation A claiming that B is breaking the rules when they aren't (possibly because the rules aren't even real) and then threatening all of B's endorsers with deletion if they don't unendorse him. This could definitely break up an invasion, and considering that we wouldn't take actions against the invaders in the case anyway (because they didn't break any rules) it's in A's interests not to contact us because then we'll notice that B isn't breaking any rules and that A is threatening them anyway. (I should note that this isn't a thought experiment, but unfortunately common).

And finally:
It is the opinion of everyone else that you have given too harsh a punishment, even if Orioni *was* using the mods as a weapon.

As your motto says, "Think about it for a moment". Actually, more than a moment is recommended
We've thought about this one quite a bit, and I still am behind the decision to delete Orioni.

P.S.
i have told someone before, a griefing delegate who cleared out a region as revenge on some modaction, that he would get deleted if he didn't unban all the nations, would clear the password and then, if no one would report him to moderation, he'd be safe. he did what i asked him, the natives returned, and no one ever reported the griefing.

it was just a friendly warning, no threat, because even though this invader was an old griefing dog, he still was sorta my friend

Communications between friends are often given more leeway, and it has a great deal to do with the perceived tone of the message.

Well, now I know of this rule, I can sleep again. I see this as a variation on an old rule, but I don't agree on the punishment. If Orioni knew about this rule, he would never have broke it. I also just learned about this today, and I am quite sure that there are thousands who are still ablivious. It is not like this is written somewhere.

Not acceptable. Why? "If the moderators find out your nation will be deleted!!" This sentance is making a declaration of what we will supposedly do if we discover that the nation has endorsed the delegate. It makes no mention of the rules or of the fact that we might not delete the nation in question.
"If the moderators find out your nation could be deleted!!", that would have been OK?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SalusaSecondus
Not acceptable. Why? "If the moderators find out your nation will be deleted!!" This sentance is making a declaration of what we will supposedly do if we discover that the nation has endorsed the delegate. It makes no mention of the rules or of the fact that we might not delete the nation in question.

"If the moderators find out your nation could be deleted!!", that would have been OK?

Borderline as per the other notes that I had on this message.

I've been very busy these last days clearing out all this mess over that one sentence and it is my belief that someone could interpret it different then I intended but I really, honestly, truly didn't mean to impersonate a moderator! I may not spell correct but I'm really not thát stupid.

There seem to be a lot of experienced people which I never met before who seem to all agree on this issue; I thank you all so very very much. But as long as the moderating-crew doesn't believe that impersonating them was nót my intention then this isn't getting anywhere. I could quote all the previous statements that have been made in my defence together with the charges, but then we'd still be talking about the interpretation of that one sentence, or that one word if you like ("will", which should have been "could").

The telegrams were sent to a coupleo of nations, my puppet got deleted, my main nation got tracked down, and was deleted. In the meanwhile this might have contributed to prevent the grieffing of a region, but that doesn't seem important at all (although I provided you with the evidence). Since I am no moderator, the only thing I could do was give an example of what could happen. I only acted to do good, why don't you believe me? I can understand that moderators delete numerous nations but I don't want to believe they are automatons who cannot come back on their decesion if someone pleads and appologises and shows their remorse over the things that have happend. I know that we don't know one another personally, so you'll have to take my word for it that I am really truly sorry for adding that one sentence when assisting in the defence of Urbanites. If it were possible I'd promise you in person that this sort of thing won't happen again.

I am really sorry about this mishap, I appologize. I only wanted to do good, there were no false intentions when I added these words. I hope you believe me and somehow find it in your heart to make things better. You know, it's Christmas next week.. :(

I believe you. Seems like the moderators are a bit stressed at the moment, and have no time to see it our way, or are not willing to. You can always send an email to admin@nationstates.net but you will be ignored there too. That is always the adress they use, if they want to get rid of the argumentation. Forget about it. The moderators have decided that you are very bad and deserved the most severe punishment a single nation can get. Get over it, I say.
This topic may get locked now. The damage is done, and we are yet another step closer to the end of this game.

I believe you. Seems like the moderators are a bit stressed at the moment, and have no time to see it our way, or are not willing to. You can always send an email to admin@nationstates.net but you will be ignored there too. That is always the adress they use, if they want to get rid of the argumentation. Forget about it. The moderators have decided that you are very bad and deserved the most severe punishment a single nation can get. Get over it, I say.
This topic may get locked now. The damage is done, and we are yet another step closer to the end of this game.

Relaxed, quit it, you're just making things worse.


Yes, Orioni, you can appeal us if you desire, but I wish to address several things:

Relaxed, This is not the most severe punishment a nation can get by a long shot. We've deleted two nations, that's it. You've got no permanent record or anything related to that. As far as we're concerned, this whole issue (should be) over and done with. For that matter, none of us are threatening you with any more punishment.
Relaxed, We haven't decided that Orioni is "very bad", just that he sent a telegram against the rules.
We aren't accusing you of impersonating a moderator (poor wording on our part at the beginning) but of using us as a weapon in game (my preferred wording). Subtle difference and not especially important, but I try to be precise.
We understand that mistakes are made by players and depending on the type of mistake we take different actions. In this case the telegram was considered enough of a problem to warrant deletion.
We understand that mistakes are made by moderators and we do review our decisions and sometimes take them back. One reason that we don't take back more decisions is because most of the contraversial ones are discussed beforehand.
Sometimes our decisions aren't popular.
Orioni, you state, "I'd promise you in person that this sort of thing won't happen again." Well, that was our expectation all along.


Relaxed, as I said before, you're only making matters worse and not contributing anything beneficial to this discussion. Please think on this before you continue to post in Moderation. Most of the time players learn after their several deletions to positive contributers to this game.

We aren't accusing you of impersonating a moderator (poor wording on our part at the beginning) but of using us as a weapon in game (my preferred wording). Subtle difference and not especially important, but I try to be precise.
I don't know if you thought about this yourself, but in some twisted but true way the invader-nation(s) that contacted the moderation have also used you as a weapon, for their own case. Which is quite paradoxical.


(Ps: I would like to continue this discussion here, I believe we are creating some sort of new defender-code here.)

I don't know if you thought about this yourself, but in some twisted but true way the invader-nation(s) that contacted the moderation have also used you as a weapon, for their own case. Which is quite paradoxical.

We are aware that both sides try to use us, that is one of the reasons that we deal so severely with it. We are trying to crack down on this.


(Ps: I would like to continue this discussion here, I believe we are creating some sort of new defender-code here.)
Really? I don't see any new rulings or code coming from this.

One remark wich I am thinking about a time.

Orioni's telegram has been reported to the mods. Orioni, being the delegate of a region, is vulnerable, and resposible for her rgion against invaders. In my opinion, that telegram was reported to get the moderators on Orioni, maybe with the meaning of destabilize the region of wich she was the delegate. And that is clearly, and nobody can deny that, a use of the moderators as a weapon.

edit: since I was disturbed, my post has a delay and the thing I wanted to say has been said.

Ellezelles point was the same one I made in the other thread regarding Orioni; while I understand what he/she was deleted, and I don't wish to argue the fact, it does seem that these violations are only reported when we have an extreme situation in a region (like invading/defending).

How does reporting the violation and effectively getting a nation ejecting from the UN, deleted, etc. during such an extreme regional event not come off as using the moderators to acheive a means to an end?

In essence, in Orioni's situation, not only did Orioni get punished for using the moderator as a tool (the ruling, not my opinion, mind you) but the person who reported him/her walks away without so much as a chip on their conscience.

It's a shame that at least both parties can't be punished for using the moderators, but I understand why the reporter can't necessarily be punished, as we can't, and would never, know their motive.

:headbang:

Relaxed, We haven't decided that Orioni is "very bad", just that he sent a telegram against the rules.
We aren't accusing you of impersonating a moderator (poor wording on our part at the beginning) but of using us as a weapon in game (my preferred wording). Subtle difference and not especially important, but I try to be precise.

Interesting combination of statements, as I regard them to be contradicting one another. Is the ruling in Orioni's case based on perceived intent? Or maybe it is based purely on the wording of the telegram itself without taking context into account?

My understanding was that the ruling was based on perceived intent, namely that Orioni was deemed to have bad intentions: using the moderator team as a weapon. As such the phrase "The moderators have decided that you are very bad" didn't strike me as being incorrect.

If not, should the wording of the rule violation "using us as a weapon in game" reflect instead that interpretation of intent and/or context isn't involved? (like "Illegal declaration of future Moderator action")

Ballotonia

Not a bad question, but you can threaten people with mod action even when we wouldn't do anything. This often happens by nation A claiming that B is breaking the rules when they aren't (possibly because the rules aren't even real) and then threatening all of B's endorsers with deletion if they don't unendorse him. This could definitely break up an invasion, and considering that we wouldn't take actions against the invaders in the case anyway (because they didn't break any rules) it's in A's interests not to contact us because then we'll notice that B isn't breaking any rules and that A is threatening them anyway. (I should note that this isn't a thought experiment, but unfortunately common).

I see. And is that the case here? As in: Orioni did not file a mod report? Could Orioni not have filed a mod report knowing others had already done so? In other words, I think that there being a bunch of people out there who do use the mods as a weapon doesn't automatically mean anyone suspected of doing the same must be guilty as charged. Now, maybe Orioni is guilty, I do not know that, but I do not presume to be capable of looking into another players' mind either.

Ballotonia

Interesting combination of statements, as I regard them to be contradicting one another. Is the ruling in Orioni's case based on perceived intent? Or maybe it is based purely on the wording of the telegram itself without taking context into account?

My understanding was that the ruling was based on perceived intent, namely that Orioni was deemed to have bad intentions: using the moderator team as a weapon. As such the phrase "The moderators have decided that you are very bad" didn't strike me as being incorrect.

If not, should the wording of the rule violation "using us as a weapon in game" reflect instead that interpretation of intent and/or context isn't involved? (like "Illegal declaration of future Moderator action")

Ballotonia

Orioni sent a telegram judged to be against our rules and thus was deleted.

The mods have made no judgement regarding Orioni's moral character (and we won't until we get to know him better, which usually only happens if a player is a constant problem or constant help and thus only happens rarely).

And now we appear to be descending into quibbling over the wording. Ok, I'll admit, with a sufficient amount of work, we could probably develop a paragraph that manages to nail down the nuances of this judgement.

I should note that to the best of my knowledge, if you beat someone with a baseball bat, it's assault with a deadly weapon regardless of whether you intended to use the bat that way or it just happened to be in your hands at the time.

I see. And is that the case here? As in: Orioni did not file a mod report? Could Orioni not have filed a mod report knowing others had already done so? In other words, I think that there being a bunch of people out there who do use the mods as a weapon doesn't automatically mean anyone suspected of doing the same must be guilty as charged. Now, maybe Orioni is guilty, I do not know that, but I do not presume to be capable of looking into another players' mind either.

Ballotonia

It's irrelevant. That has no effect on how the telegram effects the invasion, and thus has no effect on the ruling.

In the end, it boils down to this: A moderator judged that this telegram crossed the line of using us as a weapon an thus the nation was deleted.

And then, if you wish to abstract it one level further, let me state this clearly for all (and this is about the oldest policy regarding the mods of all):
THE MODS EXIST SOLELY OUTSIDE OF THE GAME. ANY USE OF THE (EXISTENCE OF THE) MODS WITHIN THE GAME (i.e. IC IN RP OR IN INVASIONS) IS AGAINST POLICY

Finally, two more notes:
1) I have far more important things to occupy my time with than this thread, so while I'll probably continue to read it, it has moved far down my list of priorities.
2) Orioni is not being ressurected (just in case that wasn't clear back around the first page of the old locked thread).

2) Orioni is not being ressurected (just in case that wasn't clear back around the first page of the old locked thread).

Nobody is expecting that you ressurect Orioni. But this discussion effects on how we warn people when rules are violated. Chances are that many of us are confused now.

@ Moderation: My policy is and always has been: (1) first inform someone via telegram, and then (2) inform the moderators in case they don't respond. I won't be changing this, to me it still seems to be the right thing to do.

@ Gothic Kitty: I still do.. I still believe that this is all just a mishap and would like to see both nations return.

[Info: The telegrams were sent by 'Th world as we know it' (rather large puppet), not by 'Orioni' (UN).]

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.

And then, if you wish to abstract it one level further, let me state this clearly for all (and this is about the oldest policy regarding the mods of all):
THE MODS EXIST SOLELY OUTSIDE OF THE GAME. ANY USE OF THE (EXISTENCE OF THE) MODS WITHIN THE GAME (i.e. IC IN RP OR IN INVASIONS) IS AGAINST POLICY


Really?
It's all coming back to me... The Pacific... delegate of a huge region... Corinthe invading... Mod barging in, saying to delete anyone who's endorsing her. A bit off topic maybe, but this is a case where mods interefered with the invade/defense matter.

Really?
It's all coming back to me... The Pacific... delegate of a huge region... Corinthe invading... Mod barging in, saying to delete anyone who's endorsing her. A bit off topic maybe, but this is a case where mods interefered with the invade/defense matter.

Irrelevant, seeing as that was as the result of a glitch in the game.

Irrelevant, seeing as that was as the result of a glitch in the game.

And also the threat was not to delete, but to eject them, and I don't recall that is was againt my endorsees. Just against me.

Personally, I think that it was a bit harsh to delete Orioni over one line. A warning would be more appropriate, especailly since the rules on this seem a little unclear (What is using the mods as a weapon in-game?).

Also, if the majority of players believe that the mods/admin were too harsh, then I think they should see it our way and resurrect Orioni. Of course, the mods/admin are under no obligation to follow the will of the players (private site thing, yada, yada, yada...), but there is a difference between what you are obliged to do and what you should do.

Just to add: Salusa said that mod decisions are sometimes unpopular. They shouldn't be. The game was created for the enjoyment of players, and the mods/admin were created to aid in the enjoyment of players. Making unpopular decisions would decrease player enjoyment, and would be contrary to the purposes of this site.

(Yes, I know what they say the original purpose was, but NS has gone beyond that. The main purpose of NS now is for the enjoyment of players.)

The difference between griefing and protecting a conquered region from counterattack is, for some, as low as twenty minutes.

As such, I can't see a problem with the difference of wording and intent coming down to a sentence.

And to constantly say "a great majority support resurrection," etc., is clearly not true; I'm not the only nay-sayer here.

The game was created for the enjoyment of players, and the mods/admin were created to aid in the enjoyment of players. Making unpopular decisions would decrease player enjoyment, and would be contrary to the purposes of this site.

(Yes, I know what they say the original purpose was, but NS has gone beyond that. The main purpose of NS now is for the enjoyment of players.)

Until Max Barry comes on her and makes a statment onto the changing of the "mission" of this site, it's still his site to run in whatever way he chooses and the moderators and administrators he picks fulfill that mission. End of story.

Just to add: Salusa said that mod decisions are sometimes unpopular. They shouldn't be. The game was created for the enjoyment of players, and the mods/admin were created to aid in the enjoyment of players. Making unpopular decisions would decrease player enjoyment, and would be contrary to the purposes of this site.

Not really. This site was designed to sell a book. The staff is here to enforce rules. Occationally, players disagree with the rules, which leads to "unpopular" decisions. We don't seek them out, or try to piss off the players, but if it happens, it happens.

As a Game Administrator has already denied the request, I see no reason to continue.