NationStates Jolt Archive

I was thinking about some of the previous threads on nativity and how it's kind of a sticky point how long a nation needs to be in a region in order to be consider a native, and how long a nation needs to have left a region in order to be not a native. Wouldn't it make a lot of sense (and perhaps be quite democratic) if it were left up to each individual region to determine that for themselves, presumably in the regional WFE and constitution? Although it wouldnt provide a uniform guideline, which would be nice, it would avoid the moderators having to make any sticky questions, so long as the mods would honor this. In fact, it would leave the thorny question of nativity up to individual regions to determine for themselves.

No, it would mean the mods have to apply the rules differently in each and every individual case, for no good reason whatsoever. You'd have people cropping up left and right, "Well, so-and-so was a Native..."

also, who would decide about theconstitution?

invaders could put puppets in regions, vote on a constitution that just makes everyone in the region a native, and take regions with no problem and ban real natives. and how would it be checked?
look in the list of regions, so many of them, a lot of smaller ones too.

No, it would mean the mods have to apply the rules differently in each and every individual case, for no good reason whatsoever.You'd have people cropping up left and right, "Well, so-and-so was a Native..."

Well, in all due respect, it seems like that's what's happening right now. Proceeding without a reasonable time frame in which a player becomes a native probably increases the amount of work the mods would have to do. Take for example the controversy in The Den. There is no easy way to determine the present leadership's delegate status other than opinion and emotion. The mods have to listen both sides ad nauseam, the problem becomes clouded as uninvolved parties weigh in, etc.

With that having been said, if there were some sort of guidelines one could easily refer to, the controversy would be more easily settled. The mods would just have to refer to some principles of nativity democratically-ratified by a region. Plus, having a set time frame would hinder, not help, invaders. It would probably slow down the time it takes to plan and actually invade a region, since invaders tend to blitzkreig.

also, who would decide about theconstitution?

Presumably, the region. And why shouldn't the region have a say in the status of its own nativity? This is obvious for player-created regions with a founder, the founder should have a big say in nativity. But regional ratificiation is presumably even more needed in founderless regions.

Your idea would go against the whole game mechanics side of NationStates; it will never happen.

Why does it go against nationstates? It's very unhelpful as a player having a vague sense of nativity. Nativity seems to be the biggest unanswered question in the game. And yet, much centers on having this question answered. And does that mean that I would be frowned on if I had my region vote on nativity anyway?

And does that mean that I would be frowned on if I had my region vote on nativity anyway?

When you are founder, you can make everybody, or nobody native, but it will have nothing to do with game rules. You can force all nations in your region to aply for nativity, but again it will be only your call as long as you are founder. Game mechanics will take over when the region has no founder, and nativity will be decided by gamerules only.

When you are founder, you can make everybody, or nobody native, but it will have nothing to do with game rules. You can force all nations in your region to aply for nativity, but again it will be only your call as long as you are founder.

I understand now, I'm just asking a question here, isn't that going to promote griefing? I mean, not that I intend to do so, but consider the following situtation. If I invaded a region and really, really wanted to be delegate, but the "natives" wouldn't let me, all I would have to do then is grief and re-found. After all, although griefing is illegal there's no rule against re-founding a region.

After all, although griefing is illegal there's no rule against re-founding a region.

The moderators seldom use the powers of roll-back, but in the case of refounding a griefed region, that is what they will do. The region will be restored as it was before the griefing, and the griefers will be deleted.

The moderators seldom use the powers of roll-back, but in the case of refounding a griefed region, that is what they will do. The region will be restored as it was before the griefing, and the griefers will be deleted.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that... if we restore a region from a back-up file, all hell will break loose with pop bugs, multiple issues etc. as nations would end up being registered in two regions.
What we'll do in some circumstances is refound the region with one of our puppets and allow the natives to restore and appoint a new founder.

After all, although griefing is illegal there's no rule against re-founding a region.

If a region is deleted due to it being griefed, we will generally restore it to native control.
If a region dies of inactivity, i.e. all the nations left by their own choice or ceased to exist, then anyone else is free to refound it.

Myrth, thank you, could you please comment on my idea on letting natives in founderless regions ratifying criteria (e.g. a reasonable timeframe) from which they can decide who is/is not native for themselves?