NationStates Jolt Archive

First off, I'm sorry if this belongs in the UN forum; I didn't know if it should go in UN or Moderation (asking for a rules clarification).

I know that recruiting on the regional message boards in player-created regions is illegal. Does this also apply to random nations that show up for two seconds to copy/paste some claptrap garbage about "support my repeal," then move on to twenty other regions to post the exact same thing?

The reason why I ask is because this happened to my region yesterday. I'm not interested in tattling; I just want to know if this can/should be prevented in the future, because it's only the second or third time it's happened to my region (I just switched regions the other day, btw) and this is the first time I've found it annoying enough to type up a post like this. And I posted on the regional board something to the effect of, "Hey, I could care less about the opinions of nations outside the region and I think this should be considered spam and ignored by the region members." So far, two more responses have agreed with my sentiments, and I haven't received any negative feedback.

Assuming that UN lobbying in such a way is legal, if I persuaded the Founder to add something like "Do not ask for a proposal approval/vote if you are not a native of this region" to the regional factbook, would it be enforceable?

Methinks UN lobbying should be done through telegrams. Still annoying, but the receiver at least has more control over particulary bothersome lobbyists through the block sender function.

I know that recruiting on the regional message boards in player-created regions is illegal. Does this also apply to random nations that show up for two seconds to copy/paste some claptrap garbage about "support my repeal," then move on to twenty other regions to post the exact same thing?

I would assume that this would be treated in the same manner as trying to recruit nations illegally, because it equates spam, that is, if they post it in multiple regional boards.

Assuming that UN lobbying in such a way is legal, if I persuaded the Founder to add something like "Do not ask for a proposal approval/vote if you are not a native of this region" to the regional factbook, would it be enforceable?

Assuming that it is legal, I doubt that such a thing would be enforceable.

Methinks UN lobbying should be done through telegrams. Still annoying, but the receiver at least has more control over particulary bothersome lobbyists through the block sender function.

I concur. It's much easier to control through telegrams, but when it comes to regional boards, it affects more than just the UN members themselves, but the nations of the region that aren't members of the UN.

Could I please get a m0dly clarification on this, so I know what, if anything, I can do about this in the future?

/end teh üb3rbumpz0r

another üb3rbumpz0r

Are the mods ignoring me now? :(

As Euroslavia stated this is most likely spam and thus isn't legal. The mods would most likely give you the same explenation, although I can't speak for them. Moreover, there is an entire forum attributed for UN proposals so there is no need to spam your regional boards.

Are the mods ignoring me now?
This is a topic that needs discussion, and Game Mods have been busy with other subjects. Forum Mods cannot rule on game infractions.

We'll get to it. You may continue to bump daily if you wish (I'm interested in this too). It ain't personal.

This is a topic that needs discussion, and Game Mods have been busy with other subjects. Forum Mods cannot rule on game infractions.

We'll get to it. You may continue to bump daily if you wish (I'm interested in this too). It ain't personal.

Thanks Fris. I understand the need for discussion; I just couldn't tell if it was going on behind the scenes or if the question had been overlooked by the mods. :)

When Pixiedance handed her login code to Moldavi and thus handed the North Pacific over to another player, it ended up upsetting many long-time North Pacific players. Moldavi changed the North Pacific NationStates board pointer to a new North Pacific invision board, further angering the long-timers ... who in turn started posting links to the old regional off-site forums.

A ruling came down that each *player* (not nation) could only post one link per day on regional boards. At the time, I was a co-author of the Tsunami Warning System resolution, and asked if I could post links to the resolution debate more than once a day.

I believe the ruling was *1* link per player per day no matter the content, on the grounds that nobody wanted the regional boards to be flooded.

Unless that ruling has changed, I think it might be hard to actually debate / edit a UN resolution on the regional boards. I agree with the need to not discriminate what is a resolution and what is a regional advert on the 1 link per day limit per player rule ...

I think the lobbying you are talking about can actually backfire on a player, for just the reason you've said. It can seem like spam. But what if that puppet stuck around and answered questions on the board for all to see? Would it then be OK if it did not include links? (My opinion: if the Region Founder and Delegates clear is ... yes. That is an opinion of a player, so it means squat!)

Spam is spam. What is so difficult about it? Un members should discuss UN issues through pm, and not move from one civil headquarters to the other. I would simply report this through "getting help", because that was not posted by a native, and he was moving from one region to the other, posting these copy/paste messages. Spam!

Bump for a moderator ruling.

Some players have weighed in, but without a ruling on the issue, it's still speculation.

Almost a week and still no answer from the mods (other than 'be patient, anyway)...bump :headbang:

This case is under review in the SUPER SECRET MOD FORUM (TM).

This case is under review in the SUPER SECRET MOD FORUM (TM).

Well, that's good to know. ;)

Bump for a mod ruling.

Mods, please limit yourselves to serious rulings--no April fools joke rulings please. ;)

(I have the feeling that bumping this today might not have been a good idea :D )

This case is under review in the SUPER SECRET MOD FORUM (TM).

When a ruling is made, it might be nice to also post a link or copy the rule and post it as an announcement in the UN forum.

Spam is spam. What is so difficult about it? Un members should discuss UN issues through pm, and not move from one civil headquarters to the other. I would simply report this through "getting help", because that was not posted by a native, and he was moving from one region to the other, posting these copy/paste messages. Spam!

I'm not sure that proposal arguments should be restricted to just telegrams, and regional messages denounced entirely as spam. That would make the conveyance of a message to any substantial audience very hard. Proposal authors already telegram delegates individually to garner support for their proposals (which I view as a good thing for many reasons), but when a resolution comes to vote, telegramming is not a plausible way of getting their message out en masse. And I definitely believe that getting messages about proposals out to be very important.

The UN has a reputation of being a Lemming troupe of votes. It is theorized by many that most UN members just read the titles and current vote count (FOR-AGAINST) of a resolution and click--without investigating what the proposal actually does or any of the arguments surrounding it. Because of this, the NSUN is often criticized as corrupt, and meaningless. Some say that outright apathy, not political discussion, is the cornerstone of the UN.

And I have to sympathize with those that feel that way: if there isn't a dialogue about issues raised in proposals then of what importance is the vote on proposals? If we’re just letting the whims of a massive, disinterested bloc decide international law and policy, then what good is the UN? We need to be able to get messages out. Otherwise those that say the UN is corrupt and pointless may as well be right. “It sounds good. Vote FOR”.

Logistically speaking, these messages can’t adequately be spread just by telegram. There have been telegram-based efforts to sway delegate votes, as their votes are listed in the UN page, but there is no possible way telegrams could be used for communicating with the whole of the UN vote. There are, as of last count, 38,383 UN members. To even attempt to ask authors and opponents to communicate with all of these members by telegram is co-signing wrist amputation orders.

Plus, there are time constraints.

I’m not sure of the exact number, but there’s a delay as to how quickly one can send telegrams. I believe, on the low side, the required intermission between telegrams might be 15 seconds. If, in order to contact the UN voters themselves we ask that 38,383 telegrams be sent (with a 15 second interval between telegrams) we are asking for 159.9 hours of telegramming. With only 168 hours in a week this task could be completed, without sleep, in a little less that one full week.

Of course, not all members vote on all proposals. So, using the number of member votes in the “International Court of Justice”, 16476, and accounting about half of those as delegate repeats, we could come up with 8238 individual members who vote on a proposal. To telegram all 8238 we come up with 34.33 hours of telegramming. While a short time when compared to 159.9 hours, it is still very significant. That averages to 6.866 hours a day over a 5 day period. It’s about a full-time job to communicate with all the UN members by telegram. That is, of course, assuming you can predict which of the less active voters will come back around to vote in your proposal’s voting period, and when they’ll do it (if you contact someone on the fifth day who voted on the first day, and they can’t get your message in time, then you may as well have not sent your telegram).

It’s an impossible task for us to ask of authors and opponents: to reach the whole UN with your message strictly by telegram.

Granted, there have been resolutions to have failed by way of telegram campaigns, which would contradict the idea that telegram campaigns during proposals’ voting period are pointless. But these failed resolutions are few and far between. AND, even further, these telegram campaigns have not always worked, such as in the case of The Global Library (where even the proposal author turned against it--it passing regardless). Plain and simple, The Global Library was passed because of “lemming” votes in the UN. Many other proposals, too, have passed due to the generosity of those that don’t care about proposal content.

The removal of political apathy is a must for the UN to retain relevance, and telegramming is clearly not a complete tool for this. I think we need to keep regional headquarters posts an option. Posting in regional headquarters is a tool to reach the everyday UN member, and it can be done in a non-spam manner. Proposal authors otherwise have no practical avenue to reach UN members. I realize that there should be limitations on regional posting, but I think that posting arguments in regional HQs cannot be entirely ruled out.

I don’t complain about the lack of pro-activeness in that UN, with members who don't read or investigate issues. There's nothing we can do about that. I do complain if we active members of the UN are denied the ability to reach out to those "lazy" voters and try to engage them. And telegramming alone cannot be the answer. If we can't reach out and start dialogue with individual members, then I see little reason to invest in any real political discussion in the UN. It's okay if we allow political apathy. But prohibiting proposal authors and opponents from broadcasting their messages region to region (restricting them to the “too-specific” telegram) is [/i]requiring[/i] political apathy.

Hersfold had an idea about a half year ago that would be for the UN resolution votes to have two tallies. The first tally would be the official UN vote, the second tally would be the local vote and this vote could also be displayed on the regional forum. (I'm adding a bit to Hersfold's idea here, but I think I've got the basics behind what he was hoping to suggest long ago.)

The idea is that we can see how we vote and our delegate votes, but we don't know if our delegate is really representing the vote of the region or his / her own interests in a democractic or other fashion.

I agree that telegramming is not really the way to "advert" complex ideas, but at the same time unwelcomed posts on a regional forum doesn't seem the answer to me either.

I like what the moderators did with the current resolution. They stickied it for the length of the debate. If people really are interested in reading the debate, they can go there. If a region is going to be open minded enough to listen to an advocate for a resolution, a simple and polite telegram asking for permision to post on the regional forum is most likely going to be responded with an open invite to do so.

I like what the moderators did with the current resolution. They stickied it for the length of the debate. If people really are interested in reading the debate, they can go there. If a region is going to be open minded enough to listen to an advocate for a resolution, a simple and polite telegram asking for permision to post on the regional forum is most likely going to be responded with an open invite to do so.

I like that idea, actually. For one of my repeal attempts I anticipated that there'd be even more confusion than normal about what my proposal actually did so I asked some of the approving delegates to post a little explanantion of the repeal that I'd written up. I only sent out a few, and only some of the delegates got around to it, and it isn't quite the same as asking delegates to post in the region yourself, but still, I think it's a little more reasonable than saying that authors have to communicate strictly by telegram. Requiring the permission of a regional delegate could help eliminate unwanted spam, and still allow authors alternative avenues of reaching out to members. That was my main shtick, that proposal proponents or opponents not be entirely banned from regional messages.

I'm also wondering if it'd be allowed for authors to place puppets in regions as more of a permanent spokesperson--more permanent than a Nationstates Turtle or Nationstates Rabbit sort of "fly-by messenger".

I like that idea, actually. For one of my repeal attempts I anticipated that there'd be even more confusion than normal about what my proposal actually did so I asked some of the approving delegates to post a little explanantion of the repeal that I'd written up. I only sent out a few, and only some of the delegates got around to it, and it isn't quite the same as asking delegates to post in the region yourself, but still, I think it's a little more reasonable than saying that authors have to communicate strictly by telegram. Requiring the permission of a regional delegate could help eliminate unwanted spam, and still allow authors alternative avenues of reaching out to members. That was my main shtick, that proposal proponents or opponents not be entirely banned from regional messages.

I'm also wondering if it'd be allowed for authors to place puppets in regions as more of a permanent spokesperson--more permanent than a Nationstates Turtle or Nationstates Rabbit sort of "fly-by messenger".

I agree with this. Some regions are xenophobic and could care less about the opinion of non-natives; when I was a delegate, I essentially told outside lobbyists "go away." I represented the nations in my region, and those nations only.

And the "fly-by-messengers" are the most annoying.

That said, I would like to get rid of regional-board UN (what I consider to be) spam, but a system where a delegate or founder of a more open-minded region would allow such messages either with individual permission or an entry in the factbook giving permission for nonnatives to move in to post UN messages would meet with my approval. There is a reason why, in my original post, I asked that if regional board lobbying was held to be legal, I asked if the founder/delegate could "opt-out" by posting an explicit prohibition on such lobbying in the regional factbook.

In any case, I believe that regions should have the right to "refuse to give lobbyists an audience," so to speak. Whether this is by an opt-in system (explicit permission to lobby has to be given) or an opt-out system (an explicit denial of permission to lobby made clear in the factbook) would be up to the game mods to decide if they agree with me at all.

Your idea of permanant puppets would be more difficult, because they would have to be non-UN puppets to avoid multiing. But some delegates only consider the opinions of UN nations within their regions when voting. It would seem to me that placing puppets, with the intention of them becoming native lobbyists, would encourage UN multiing.

I'm also wondering if it'd be allowed for authors to place puppets in regions as more of a permanent spokesperson--more permanent than a Nationstates Turtle or Nationstates Rabbit sort of "fly-by messenger".

In the IDU we have a puppet from the Nederlands (one of the Dutch language groups) whom is active in our region. Our founder, the Xtraordinary Gentlemen, had several puppets in other regions for carrying out diplomatic relations. Grosseschnauzer still maintains strong ties with both the IDU and North Pacific and has a group of canine nations. :)

I think this is something that most players would be flattered by.

I myself placed the IRCO in Hack's UN region based on the idea that if anybody needed the IRCO to swing into action, that they'd think to look in the Halls of the UN. I don't do much with the IRCO, but do check in on it at least once every week.

This case is under review in the SUPER SECRET MOD FORUM (TM).


T3h SUPER SECRET MOD FORUM (TM)?

T3h SUPER SECRET MOD FORUM (TM)?
* /me GORTs The Number One Republic of Estrato. *


... by damn, I've been wanting to do that ALL DAY! Feels GOOD! ...

* /me GORTs The Number One Republic of Estrato. *


... by damn, I've been wanting to do that ALL DAY! Feels GOOD! ...

Too bad you'll have to wait another 365 days! :p

Bump for a mod ruling...it's been almost two weeks now :headbang:

Hmmm, saw this recently and realized that it was exceedingly relevant:

"]Telegramming other nations to lobby them for support is fine, of course. That's half the game. But if they're trying to talk to the entire region, they should use the regional message board. Players who use a macro or similar to send the same message to hundreds of people should be warned not to spam.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=280314 (19 September 2003, emphasis mine)
(crossposted at http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=280315)

Hmmm, saw this recently and realized that it was exceedingly relevant
Based on your cross-posting of that a week or two ago, I dug out the old discussion that Steph quoted, and found that many of the same issues were being discussed a year ago. However, there have been radical changes in terms of regional advertising since then (only allowed in game-created regions these days), so that year-old advice is being reconsidered at present.

Rules evolve, and need to be discussed. A quick but arbitrary ruling would be handy, but not necessarily fair. Give us some time, please.

Hmmm, saw this recently and realized that it was exceedingly relevant:

]
Telegramming other nations to lobby them for support is fine, of course. That's half the game. But if they're trying to talk to the entire region, they should use the regional message board. Players who use a macro or similar to send the same message to hundreds of people should be warned not to spam.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=280314 (19 September 2003, emphasis mine)
(crossposted at http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=280315)

My original question appled to people who post on tens, if not hundreds, of regional message boards with the same message. And your links focus almost exclusively on telegrams, which can be blocked.

bump :headbang:

:headbang:
Our current suggestions involve a change in previous policy, and require a signoff from the admins. Until they get a chance to review that, this issue can't be resolved. We've not forgotten about this, I assure you.

t3h üb3rbumpz0r of d00m

(Hey, Fris, would you have any idea how often [violet] checks up on these kinds of things?)

Has admin approved teh super-secret m0dz0r ruling of d00m yet?

(Hey, Fris, would you have any idea how often [violet] checks up on these kinds of things?)
She's on vacation[?]/working vacation[?]. Something about virus design, I think she said. ExxonMobil maybe?

Try next weekend. I added it to her calendar ... not that she does what I say anyway.

She's on vacation[?]/working vacation[?]. Something about virus design, I think she said. ExxonMobil maybe?

Try next weekend. I added it to her calendar ... not that she does what I say anyway.

Well, it's almost next weekend, so here comes teh üb3rbumpz0r of d00m

bump

She's on vacation[?]/working vacation[?]. Something about virus design, I think she said. ExxonMobil maybe?

Try next weekend. I added it to her calendar ... not that she does what I say anyway.

The weekend is over, still no news, eh... :headbang:

The weekend is over, still no news, eh...
You have no idea how much this frustrates me too ...

It will happen. Be patient.

Bump for admin ruling :headbang:

I blame the Iraqi Information Minister (http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/). :D

Yet another weekend approaches and I'm guessing [violet] is nowhere to be found... :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Bump because [violet] actually shows up on "Who's Online"

Now's my chance! :D

Bump because [violet] actually shows up on "Who's Online"

Now's my chance! :D

[violet] must be ignoring me... :mad: :headbang:

Now I can see where certain NSers get their conspiracy theories from :p

[violet] must be ignoring me...

'tis also possible she has a life... it is hard to make rule-decisions when you are hiding from a John Nike trying to kill you!

'tis also possible she has a life... it is hard to make rule-decisions when you are hiding from a John Nike trying to kill you!

Er...I also made the OP more than a month ago, and my question has still gone unanswered. The mods referred it to [violet] what, three weeks ago? :headbang:

bump

bump

How many times are you going to "bump" this?

How many times are you going to "bump" this?

Until [violet] or someone of similar competence (I mean that in the legal sense of the word, btw) makes a decision on whether or not UN lobbying on other regions' message boards is permitted or spam.

Please note that I have been following the twenty-four hour bump rule; I really have been waiting that long. The OP was more than a month ago.

How many times are you going to "bump" this?

For someone relatively new, you may not know this, but you are allowed to bump a topic once every twenty-four hours while waiting for a response.

The mods referred it to [violet] what, three weeks ago?
During which time [violet] has visited the site three or four times, the last being the 26th and 27th when she, Sal and Max spent a HUUUUGE amount of their time rebuilding the site, in lieu of dealing with this and other needed issues. We all have other things going on with both NationStates and real life, some of them quite major.

Here's the deal: our proposed changes are in direct opposition to a prior ruling by [violet]. Until she or Max get a chance to review both of them (and frankly, they're very low priority in the wake of other stuff), we will not be posting an update or change. A weekly bump will suffice until she gets to it.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8784627&postcount=2


UN Advertising: Region natives are welcome, even encouraged, to post discussions of UN proposals and resolutions on their regional message boards. UN business is part of the region and part of the game.

* Non-natives and region-hoppers are forbidden to post UN advertisements or requests for proposal approval outside of their native region.
* Note that the Pacifics, Lazarus, and the Rejected Realms do not receive special treatment here. UN approval requests have even less relevance in the feeder regions than they do in player-created regions, and are thus forbidden.
* Requests for proposal approval may be telegrammed to UN delegates, except where the region's World Factbook entry designates otherwise. More than one request per proposal may be considered spam and should be avoided.

I am assuming that that is the ruling, then? If so, it might be a good idea for someone to post this rules change in the UN forum so the players that tend to lobby heavily are aware of it.

OK, I'll shut up now. :D

I am assuming that that is the ruling, then?
Let's let it sit for a few days first, if you don't mind. I posted that on the assumption that it was ok, but it hasn't been formally approved just yet.

Out of curiousity, does it satisfy what you were wanting to hear?

Let's let it sit for a few days first, if you don't mind. I posted that on the assumption that it was ok, but it hasn't been formally approved just yet.

Out of curiousity, does it satisfy what you were wanting to hear?

Hell, I'm surprised I didn't write it myself. :D

Here's the deal: our proposed changes are in direct opposition to a prior ruling by [violet]. Until she or Max get a chance to review both of them (and frankly, they're very low priority in the wake of other stuff), we will not be posting an update or change. A weekly bump will suffice until she gets to it.

*exercises weekly bumpage*

Any news on when [violet] will ratify or reject the ruling?