NationStates Jolt Archive

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/split_sm.jpg from http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=407343
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=407034
Here is a recent discussion, quite detailed, might I add, about why the moderators are hesitant on putting a Delegate into the Founder status. I suggest that you check that out.

While I realize that Moderators are hesitant about doing this, I would like to ask the Team to consider it in our case.

The moderators don't make any sort of special request, they treat each case such as this, equally.

Euroslavia -

I've read the thread there, and posted my reply. Here it is:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8520461#post8520461

Actually, I probably hijacked that thread's direction, but I've apologized for that.

Would an option be to have the Moderators shut off the UN Delegate's access to the Regional Controls instead of replacing the Founder?

Strictly speaking, the invaders haven't done anything wrong to break any of the rules. It's unfortunate that this has happened, and you have lost your region, but the only thing that I can suggest is that you gather support from other defenders, ones that you know you can trust to actually give your region back to you. The only way that the moderators will intervene in the situation is if griefing is involved, and multiple natives are kicked (more than an Invader delegate is allowed).

Ejecting-and-unbanning a small fraction of natives is legal. Ejecting-and-unbanning many natives or ejecting-and-banning any natives is illegal.


Would an option be to have the Moderators shut off the UN Delegate's access to the Regional Controls instead of replacing the Founder?

I don't believe that the moderators would do such a thing, seeing as everything up to this point (that the invaders have done) is legal.

They have not violted any rule so far.

I am not6 a moderator
Heiligkeit, disclaimer notwithstanding, that's not your call.

Please refrain from making summary judgements in Moderation topics. That's our job, and comments like yours don't add a thing to the thread.

I was ejected from Wesyern Europe. The delegate pas-protected it, and did NOT receive the passowrd to return. I(sn't this against invader rules?

How long does the Invader Delegate have to send the password on to natives that have been expelled?

I know of one that hasn't been given the correct password and it's been almost 2 hours (according to the MSN IM chat I've just had) since the last Telegram was sent to him.

Edit: punctuation errors.

Helandros: You are not a native. So, no.

How long does the Invader Delegate have to send the password on to natives that have been expelled?

I know of one that hasn't been given the correct password and it's been almost 2 hours (according to the MSN IM chat I've just had) since the last Telegram was sent to him.

Edit: punctuation errors.

I do believe that the Invader delegate, according to the rules, had one system update to telegram all natives the password, after they invaded and took your region.

The password MUST be telegrammed to ALL natives within one system update of the password being set.

Another native, I also would agree to Brabrant being our founder.
This is a moderation topic, not a popularity contest. These sorts of posts do not materially affect any decision in this case. Please stop posting them.

This is a moderation topic, not a popularity contest. These sorts of posts do not materially affect any decision in this case. Please stop posting them.
Not trying to affect the decision just voiceing my opinion. Sorry about that... :p

I do believe that the Invader delegate, according to the rules, had one system update to telegram all natives the password, after they invaded and took your region.
How often do they take place?

Not trying to affect the decision just voiceing my opinion. Sorry about that... :p


How often do they take place?

System updates occur twice a day, one major update and one minor update.

I do believe that the Invader delegate, according to the rules, had one system update to telegram all natives the password, after they invaded and took your region.

To my understanding, this is incorrect. My understanding is that passwords must be sent out immediately. I'm sure a moderator will be able to verify which of us is correct here.

Ballotonia

To my understanding, this is incorrect. My understanding is that passwords must be sent out immediately. I'm sure a moderator will be able to verify which of us is correct here.

Ballotonia

If what you're saying is correct, then perhaps there should be an edit to this sticky: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=321528, in the first post.

If what you're saying is correct, then perhaps there should be an edit to this sticky: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=321528, in the first post.

What do you see in the message with huge red letters?

Euroslavia -

I've seen that post you're refering too, but also that it's not yet official.

I've been looking at this thread http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=301703 and it states that new passwords must be sent out immediately after the password has been changed.

If this has been changed, then how often is there a system update? Once every 12 hours, or is it only one of the two system updates that 'counts'.

Is there a post with all the official rules about invasions, native rights, etc.? The one states in big red letters that it's not official yet, and the other post that I've been reading has things from 2003 and 2004.

If there isn't such a post, would it be possible to have one made so that Invaders, natives, and Defenders are all playing with the same set of rules?

Although unofficial this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=321528) thread is most likely going to be the ground rules of any official guideline sheet for region invasions, so for now, I would go by the rules specified in Reploid Productions' thread.

It is not official. Region-crash a region, follow its suggestion and don't give the password to the natives immediately - you break rules and some or all the following will happen:

- You get warned, (perhaps) password cleared
- You get kicked out of the UN, password cleared
- You get DEATed, password cleared.

Maybe something else too, can't really think too much tonight. (Hey, it's Friday after all.)

reppy's thread was some thought on how it could be changed, but not official.

invader delegate (a not internally elected delegate, to please dear old coggy :p ) must telegram the password to all natives immediatly, and in a clear, non-cryptic way. ejected natives must be removed from the banlist immediatly. you are not allowed to eject too many natives.

Ah, my bad. :) It would make more sense with the way that Ballotonia and CG said, seeing as it would be harder to determine if a t-gram was sent before either of the updates, rather than just immediately. Thank you for the clarification.

Thanks for the clarification Euroslavia - invaders must telegram immediately. Clear enough.

How many telegrams can be made per minute? There's the SPAM protection active, so you can only make so many telegrams in so much time. How am I to judge if I were to fall under "immediately" given that fact?

Yeah, I'm a newbie at being invaded. Sorry to be asking so many questions, but the information I've been reading has things scattered all over the place, and it's not always clear what is a definitive ruling, what is precident, what is what that particular person thought it should be, and what was stated by someone who isn't a Mod. If I'm in the wrong place for asking this, or should ask these questions via another way, please let me know!

a smart invader would just telegram the password before setting it, that way you could never burn your fingers.

think there's a way of calculating it..

How many telegrams can be made per minute? There's the SPAM protection active, so you can only make so many telegrams in so much time. How am I to judge if I were to fall under "immediately" given that fact?

The only SPAM rules (in the game, not the forums) that I know of are here:
AdSpam: Spamming other people's regional messageboards with adverts for your region. The only places where you are allowed to put advertisements are the Gameplay forum or the regional messageboards of the feeder regions (The Pacifics and The Rejected Realms). And even then, don't over-do it. The same rules apply to sending advertisement telegrams to nations not residing in a feeder region: don't do it. Report AdSpam using the Getting Help Page.

Obviously, sending out telegrams with worthless information to multiple people could be considered spamming, though having nothing to do with regional ads. I suppose that one is a 'given'. Just as long as the telegrams that you send out are relevant information and unique to the specific user, there shouldn't be any problem with spamming.

Yeah, I'm a newbie at being invaded. Sorry to be asking so many questions, but the information I've been reading has things scattered all over the place, and it's not always clear what is a definitive ruling, what is precident, what is what that particular person thought it should be, and what was stated by someone who isn't a Mod. If I'm in the wrong place for asking this, or should ask these questions via another way, please let me know!

There's absolutely nothing wrong with asking questions. I'm sure the moderators would rather you ask first, rather than doing it, and asking if its legal after the fact.

The only SPAM rules (in the game, not the forums) that I know of are here:
He doesn't really mean SPAM, he means flood. Flood control prevents sneding many telegrams quickly. I think there is flood control here, but I don't know the timing.

He doesn't really mean SPAM, he means flood. Flood control prevents sneding many telegrams quickly. I think there is flood control here, but I don't know the timing.

Not sure about the exact timing of the telegram flood control. Perhaps a moderator could answer this one?

Perhaps a moderator could answer this one?
Or an experienced TG spammer? :p

The time limit is 15 seconds per telegram, otherwise, you'll get that cool message saying that you'll have to wait more time before you can send another telegram. :)

Endorsements Received: 9 (Elitemilitary, RCO I, Strappingyounglad, Nine ladies, GrantVillia, Landtopia, Kitchuanland, McAdam 20s, Street Sweepers)
UN update pending: nation has 12 verified endorsements.

What does the last line mean?

Another question, if a native is ejected then unbanned then gets ejected and unbanned again, is it considered as one or two ejections of a Native nation?

What does the last line mean?It means that at that time between updates, the account has 12 endorsements actually recognised as supporting it. How-ever, pending the system update, it looks like only 9 accounts will actually support it after the next update, I think.

Basically, verified endorsements are those that you had at the time of the last update, and the other ones are those you have at that actual time and are likely to have after the next update. Its a good way to track at each update how many other U.N. accounts are supporting you as or for delegate.Another question, if a native is ejected then unbanned then gets ejected and unbanned again, is it considered as one or two ejections of a Native nation?I'm not sure, it depends on the circumstances. A Founder, I am sure, can kick who-ever, when-ever.

A Delegate how-ever must respect certain rules, becase there are 2 ( Or maybe even 3 ) types of Delegate possible, Invader and Native ( As well as maybe Defender ). How-ever a Game Moderator would be best suited to answer that, ;)

Another question, if a native is ejected then unbanned then gets ejected and unbanned again, is it considered as one or two ejections of a Native nation?

I think that counts as two... I've also read somewhere that if he kicks the same nation a third time... it is considered some sort of "malicious retribution" but I dont know for sure... I'd waid for a mod on that one...

*NOTE* Ish not a mod */NOTE*

I've seen an ejection limit for native UN-members of 10% or 20 ejections, whichever is smaller, before there is griefing - even if only technically.

1. Is this still accurate, or has it been changed somewhere that I've missed? I don't want to accuse the Invader Delegate of griefing when she hasn't been, especially if it's because I've missed a comment somewhere.

2. How is the number of nations in a region calculated? In Western Europe, I've seen it fluctuate between 102 and 115 nations. (Not all that important right now since 10% is 10 or 11 nations - call it 12 for rounding, but if we get a huge influx of Defenders/Invaders/Rubber-neckers just before the next update, I can easily see the population spiking.)

3. Is it 10% of ALL nations, or just native nations?

I've seen an ejection limit for native UN-members of 10% or 20 ejections, whichever is smaller, before there is griefing - even if only technically.
That is a statement taken from this thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=321528
Though, as the giantesque red shiiny letters say: THESE RULES ARE NOT YET OFFICIAL IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM!!


1. Is this still accurate, or has it been changed somewhere that I've missed? I don't want to accuse the Invader Delegate of griefing when she hasn't been, especially if it's because I've missed a comment somewhere.
If you want to know the rules about invading, check this thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=301703


2. How is the number of nations in a region calculated? In Western Europe, I've seen it fluctuate between 102 and 115 nations. (Not all that important right now since 10% is 10 or 11 nations - call it 12 for rounding, but if we get a huge influx of Defenders/Invaders/Rubber-neckers just before the next update, I can easily see the population spiking.)
The native population is generally the nations that were in the region before the invasion occured.

3. Is it 10% of ALL nations, or just native nations?
An invader delegate can kick only a few, tactically chosen natives (and unban them immediatly when he ejects them). He can kick as much non-natives as he likes.

Let me clarify my last question there with an example.

I'm in Region UnderInvasion, which has 100 member: 80 natives (10 of which are UN members) and 20 invaders.

How should I then read that 10% figure (which I realize is only unofficial, but since all the rules I've found are essentially unofficial and are more guidelines to be used on a case-by-case basis, and it's been modified in 2004 I'm going to assume it's as authoritative as I'll be getting):

1. As 10 ejections (native + invaders)
2. As 8 ejections (only natives)
3. As 1 ejection (only native UN members)

Option 3 can't be right since that would restrict the Invader Delegates ability to eject prohibitively - after the first update chances are they couldn't eject anyone more.

Option 1 also doesn't seem right since they could then flood the region with non-UN member multis to up the population and thus the number of ejections (with a maximum of 20).

So I guess what I'm asking is would the Invader Delegate, using the example above, generally speaking be allowed 8 tactical ejections of native UN members.

Non-native ejections are limitless, of course, and native non-UN members are immune from being ejected from all that I've read.

Edit: grammatical error

- As I've said, an invader delegate can eject as many non-natives as he wants
- As for natives. There is no set number or percentage he can eject. Please forget about the draft rules, they are not in effect, and only cause more confusion.

... then when does the Invader Delegate cross the line from tactical ejections to griefing? There's got to be some kind of a guideline to go by - and those rules are basically the only thing I can find as a guideline.

I'm clueless about invasions and the like, and I and my region are 100% against being dragged into this part of the NS game. DEN has had it's token system update to prove their point and claim their victory and now it's having fun at our expense. It's ruining our game experience here and this invasion is keeping us away from why we came to NS and stayed here.

My way of defending my region is to make sure that what they do is within the bounds set down by the Mods, and if they cross over the line to pounce on that. After all, we have been dragged into something against our will, which we have been very vocal about on the RMB with no sign that the Invaders have any concern about that.

Therefore, I'm going to pounce on each and every rule violation they make and file a complaint. But I need to have some idea as to when that happens so I don't end up SPAMming the Mods with false complaints.

As it is, we've got 8 native UN-member ejections, and one possible native non UN member ejection right now (I'm still waiting for word from that person as to whether or not he was in the region before or after the invasion started) and we're getting close to that 10% level. With the next system update, we'll probably excede that.

Therefore, let me adjust my questions to:

1. what is considered a tactical ejection?
2. what is 'a few'?
3. are ejections still cumulative? Meaning - half a few tonight plus half a few tomorrow equals a few....

Just to clarify: 111 natives present when delegacy changed
: 5 invaders (Including myself)

Strangely, we came to power with 9 or 10 native endorsements.

I have a list of natives here, Illuve, if you want it.

Which have since been removed, I believe. <-- Edit: the native endorsements, that is. You are back to being the Invader Delegate, for the good order.

Pass me the list if you would so I can review it.

... then when does the Invader Delegate cross the line from tactical ejections to griefing? There's got to be some kind of a guideline to go by - and those rules are basically the only thing I can find as a guideline.

<SNIP>

Therefore, let me adjust my questions to:
1. what is considered a tactical ejection?
2. what is 'a few'?
3. are ejections still cumulative? Meaning - half a few tonight plus half a few tomorrow equals a few....

Only a couple of posts ago I've pointed you out this thread, which contains the rules about invading: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=301703

A couple of quotes from that thread:
OK...THERE IS NO SET PERCENTAGE
-Neutered Sputniks

To avoid running afoul of the Mod Squad, Invader Delegates should limit themselves to ejecting ONLY those natives who are a direct threat to the Invader Delegate's position. Also remember that any ejected natives must be removed from the banlist instantly.
-Cogitation

Natives are just that: the region's natives. Invaders are, you guessed it, anyone belonging to the invading group (and yes, that includes the counter-invaders as well, they're not native, and they're not neutral - which leaves only one category). - Neutered Sputniks

I have a question about invasion/ejecting rules, with native delegates.

Earlier today, I was looking for a new region for a newly created nation (this one), and while checking the ads in the RR, noticed a large number of recent arrivals from the region of Portugal. On checking, I found the region of well over 100 nations empty (devoid of nations), and the region passworded. I am only assuming that the nation that did the ejecting was a native delegate, because I don't know for sure. This happened this morning, and the region no longer exists.

My question is - is a native delegate allowed to do that. I know founders can, but have always been unsure how far a delegate's powers extend.

Hey if this is just a discussion about the rules the ill ask here: How longs does an invader delegate have to be in the region to be a native? Because we have native support (shockingly). Or do we have to wait for a native UN member to endorse us?

you'd need the most native endorsements of all UN members in the region, to be an internally-elected delegate. that still doesn't make you a native though. theoratically, i believe no amount of time will ever make you a native..not entirely sure though.

If invaders hold the region for long enough, they're considered natives. That's what happened in The DEN, our former HQ. Komokom was ruled as "native" :confused:

I know this may be a bit late by the way Grippsholm, but my ex-region was there helping you against TITO when they invaded. Just sorry you lost.

So ill have to wait for a Mod on this one then. If one says one thing and another says another...

If my understanding is correct, once the Invader Delegate has more native endorsements than the native Delegate would have, then the Invader Delegate is the Native Delegate.

If this was done in error, the natives can remove their endorsements, of course.

There was no native delegate when we moved in. Theres was actually only one UN nations in there, who was only left over from the last invasion.

EDIT: It seems that the Forum hasn't changed its time foreward, just something I noticed :p

If my understanding is correct, once the Invader Delegate has more native endorsements than the native Delegate would have, then the Invader Delegate is the Native Delegate.

If this was done in error, the natives can remove their endorsements, of course.

The term here is actually "internally-elected delegate" and not "native delegate"

An invader I belive can in fact become a native should they stay a 'long indeterminate period of time' with the intent to remain there as a member of the region, and not as an opressor. So should you get you and a bunch of friends to move in somewhere and forcefully take the delegacy, then chill and merge with the locals indending to stay there the rest of your NS life... I think it cool

*NOTE* Ish not a mod */NOTE*

Big Invasion/delegate FAQ (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=301703)
"For a delegate to be considered a native delegate, he/she must have enough native support to remain in that position without the assistance of other non-natives - invaders or neutral."

I dont have any specific questions. however, as a long time invader, I do have this to comment:

1). There needs to be a review of the "un-official" rules and, after a year in action, an "official, binding" set of rules that results from this review

2). There needs to be a rules-development committee that is populated by moderators, defenders, and invaders so that all interests are represented in the formation of rules and that rules are not arbitrarily created, enforced or un-enforced

3) There is accountability for all players, including moderators

I will be willing to clarify my remarks, but not at this particular time

Dred Pirate Roberts

I dont have any specific questions. however, as a long time invader, I do have this to comment:

1). There needs to be a review of the "un-official" rules and, after a year in action, an "official, binding" set of rules that results from this review

2). There needs to be a rules-development committee that is populated by moderators, defenders, and invaders so that all interests are represented in the formation of rules and that rules are not arbitrarily created, enforced or un-enforced

3) There is accountability for all players, including moderators

I will be willing to clarify my remarks, but not at this particular time

Dred Pirate Roberts


The moderators are here to enforce the rules, not negotiate with players on what they should be. They were appointed to their positions for the mere fact that they have the ability to do so, though, they do accept suggestions, which is where the next part comes in.

There actually already is a thread for such a discussion, as a committee really isn't needed.
ATTN: INVADERS - Draft version of revised invasion rules! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=321528)
Check that thread out. The rules here are unofficial, as they are currently things that are being discussed. State your opinions on what you think needs to be done to the rules.

With no disrespect at all, but how long does it take to review these rules? That thread was made almost a year ago. Yet nothing official has become of it.

I have posted several times on this forum, mostly for clarification of the rules. Yet technically speaking, there are no rules. They are all unwritten, or unofficial rules. That the mods just pop right out of their heads (no disrespect intended). So how can you enforce rules of Invading when there are no rules of Invading. There technically are no rules until there is a thread that says Official Rules of Invading. I have yet to see this as of yet.

Since mods most of the time do not even listen to Invaders pleas, what is the point of us even making them. Since supposivly they just say one thing, and just walk away. I know you are busy, but I have not seen hardly any activity coming from the mods, on invasion standards. After the mods do something. I know you don't have to explain every move, but you think we should atleast get the respect as gameplayers to get some kind of a response when we are inquireing something.

So why don't we get something official, and then go from there eh??? ;)

There are official rules for Invading/Defending: Big Invasion/delegate FAQ (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=301703)

Despite the creation last year of an invaders manual (ATTN: INVADERS - Draft version of revised invasion rules!), I and many other invaders still have considerable concerns about the partisanship of the moderators and their lack of accountability to anyone in the game but themselves. This lack of accountability still manifests itself in ways that frequently rules against invaders, and many of these problems have had a detrimental effect in the ability of invaders to conduct their business. After documenting some of these abuses in accountability, I offer some proposals for your consideration for how we might move forward together and improve this essential part of Nation States.

Specifically, moderators have avoided accountability in the following ways:

 Arbitrary creation and/or modification of invasion rules
 Arbitrary un-enforcement of invasion rules
 Inappropriate interference in invasions by moderators
 Arbitrary enforcement of definite rules
 Ambiguous definitions necessary for invasions

My comments are made in the spirit of offering constructive criticism, consistent to the criticism welcomed by Neutered Sputniks, a former moderator, during the formation of the invader’s handbook. I mean no disrespect, but I do wish to express my sincere frustration with many of what I and others perceive to be unjust moderation and the lack of accountability for these actions due to your positions as game moderators. My comments are followed by proposed reforms, meant to strengthen the need for moderators to be accountable to the invasion rules.

 The arbitrary creation of invasion rules by moderators, not found in the unofficial invasion manual:

Despite the creation of an “un-official” invader handbook, which was created through the consultation of invaders, defenders and moderators, the moderators are still unilaterally creating rules. This means that the moderators act as if they are not accountable to the written rules found in the invader handbook.

The arbitrary creation of rules destabilizes the ability of invaders to invade regions. The arbitrary creation of new invasion rules mean that, although invasions are legal, the moderators still have the power to decide which invasions are legal. Their ability to create and change at their personal will means that invader nations can never predictably know the rules of the game and therefore never confidently play it.

I can cite a specific example of moderators arbitrarily inventing rules. For example, in the thread "Delegate Should Be Granted Founder's Powers" started by Jjuulliiaann, Cogitation clearly is inventing in posts #16 and #18 by declaring that invaders can not force nations in an invaded region to endorse the invading delegate. Even Crazy Girl, a well-known defender, admits that she “never knew” (#17) that rule existed. When Cogitation is called on the unilateral rule change, Cogitation simply declares (#20) that common policy was being "re-iterat[ed]." But if that was common policy, then how come no one knew it existed prior to Cogitation's declaration?

 The moderators’ position that the invasion rules are strictly "unofficial" allows the moderators to avoid enforcing rules they don’t wish to enforce.

It is the common experience of nationstates invaders to confront the moderators, whether via the “Getting Help” page, or by Mirc, and cite to them passages and rules in the invaders handbooks, only to be turned away by moderators who insist that the invader handbook is “un-official only.” Again, the practical ramification of this is that there are no official invasion rules other than the rule in the FAQ that says clearly that invasions are legal. However, with no official rules, it is still left to the arbitrary opinion of the moderators which invasions are legal. It also means that the entire exercise of appealing to nationstates players when constructing the handbook is a complete waste and a fraud. If none of the players’ contributions actually help to construct the rules of the game, then the entire 16 pages of player contributions is an exercise in futility. The moderators ought to have considered the experience of players and used those experiences to create a fairer and more complete conception of the rules of the game.

The reality is that, in the invader handbook, there are many player observations and experiences cited by experienced invaders that the moderators do not give sufficient consideration. For example, Cosmo Kramerica observes (#56) that some invaders deliberately eschew the UN simply to avoid ejection from regions that are battleground type regions. Second, Martian Puppets (#122) proposes a series of definitions and rules that seem extraordinarily fair to invaders and defenders alike, and that require the moderators to be accountable for their actions. Unfortunately, these definitions and rules were never given the sufficient consideration they deserved and are currently not an official part of the game play. Beachcomber (#128) suggests “if a nation has been in a region for X days, it is a native.” Unfortunately, the moderators never agreed to use such a definition, and no specific time frame was ever accepted or adopted officially. However, the definitions the moderators are currently using regarding “invader delegate” and native delegate are excessively vague and arbitrary. More on this later.

 Moderators have inappropriately interfered with invasion gameplay:

Even after the creation of the invasion handbook, moderators have still interfered with on-going and active invasions. Moderator interference of invasions has raised uncomfortable questions about the objectivity of the moderators on invasions, despite invasions being a legal part of the game. There is anecdotal evidence of improper moderator intervention against invasions of Massachusetts and in China. In both Massachusetts and China, the moderators revived a deleted founder and that revived founder defeated the invasion. The thread Injustice in Japan documents the re-activation of the founder of Japan to defeat an invasion in Japan. In North Pacific, Cogitation removed the invader delegate for “griefing” the region. However, the invader delegate of the region ejected only defenders who were trying to remove the invader delegate from power during a late-night raid. The invader delegate was deleted for “not complying” with the moderator’s ruling, although the invader delegate actually complied the first moment the ruling was received. This is documented in the thread North Pacific: Fiction and Fact

 Arbitrary refusal of the moderators to enforce definite rules

Invaders cite instances of the refusal of moderators to enforce well-known and long-established rules. This often happens during instances in which enforcing the rules would mean that the invaders win.

A situation in North Atlantic involving spamming the regional happenings (Help Me! [merged w/Regional Happenings being Spammed]) is a perfect example. Last February, the Isle of Skye claims that Taxachussetts griefed the region “North Atlantic” by ejecting him from North Atlantic. Taxachussetts claims that, by returning and exiting the region so often within such a small space of time, that The Isle of Skye griefed the regional happenings. In the thread “Clarification Requested in North Atlantic,” Cogitation says that an ejected nation who repeatedly returns to the region he was ejected from is spamming the regional happenings. But despite there being a ruling that should have been instructive on the specific situation, the moderators made no ruling in the case and the players were left to resolve the situation on their own. At the time, Taxachussetts was considered an “invader delegate” by the moderators.

More recently, on March 19, 2005, the nation Anstan created a thread in the moderator’s forum I’m Tired of the Spammers to express concern over spamming in The Colonial Entente. Although Cogitation responded to the thread and acknowledged that private warnings were possibly made, no official action was taken in the region on the subject and the spamming continued. During the following week, Anstan and four additional players brought the issue to the attention of the moderators via the forum, complaining that the problem was still unresolved.

 Ambiguous definitions of central rules, and the refusal of the moderators to clarify those definitions

There are a number of terms and concepts in Nationstates that are common throughout the game but have remained undefined, and often those definitions are critical in order to invade regions. Such terms and concepts include (but are not limited to): “native,” “founder,” “spamming,” and “recruiting.” The moderators’ refusal or inability to define these concepts has impeded the ability of invaders to conduct and conclude their operations and have often put invaders in opposition to the moderators. The lack of definitions in these circumstances have also made it difficult for non-invaders (and non-defenders) to achieve objectives that are not related to invasions.

The thread "Delegate Should Be Granted Founder's Powers" contains a perfect example of the moderators refusing to resolve disputed definitions. Within an hour and fifteen minutes, four players express their strong support for the creation of a clear definition of native status, and a request for a process in which a native delegate might become a founder. Cogitation (post #5) immediately expresses disapproval of this idea and promises that “I will strongly recommend against this idea” if it were formally proposed. However, Taxachussetts (#14) makes strong arguments that the lack of definition for natives may actually promote griefing by preventing any concrete process for becoming a founder. Cogitation refuses even to comment on this point.

In post #13 of the same thread on founder powers, Cogitation makes an interesting point that there is a simple method the moderators use for determining whether or not a delegate is an invader or a native delegate. It seems to many invaders that a simple process, using the presently technology and setup of the game, to determine native status. In addition, it seems that regions, particularly founderless regions, ought to be able to decide democratically who is and who is not a native. In the thread entitled, Idea:Nativity determined in Regional Constitutions, it is unlikely the moderators would support a region’s ability to self-define native status, although no moderator ever directly comments on this idea during this thread.

Recommended Reforms:

 A review of the use and application of the "Un-official rules" that includes a fact-finding efforts by the moderators that solicits the binding opinions of invaders and defenders of the "Un-official rules" much like the drafting of the "un-official rules themselves.

Ideally, a review of the rules would solicit opinions that game players that would then be used to create an official code of rules that would be binding on invaders and defenders and would be required of the moderators to enforce. This would mean that the solicitation of invader opinions during the formation of invasion rules would not be an exercise in futility, like during the creation of the invader handbook.

 The creation of an official code of rules that is based on the result of those discussions. I personally strongly urge you to adopt the code of rules found on page 9, post #122 of the "unofficial rules thread" as the official code of rules.

Having an official, written code of rules would reduce the possibility of arbitrary moderator rules inventions and rules enforcement, and would therefore demand the game moderators to be more accountable to the invasion rules.

 The creation of a committee that has binding oversight powers over the moderators. Such a committee ought to contain a mix of invaders, defenders and moderators

Allowing invaders and defenders to sit on a rules committee that had authority to review the rules and make amendments would reduce the ability of the moderators to arbitrarily enforce invent rules not explicitly stated in the proposed official binding rulebook.

 A clear definition of the following: the process in which one qualified as a native in a region the process in which one qualifies as a founder of a region, clear rules on recruiting such as: the legal number of lines in a recruiting message, the ability of feeder regions to set their rules for recruiting messages.

 the creation of at least one moderator who is pro-invader and therefore a counter-weight to the still-evident animus that the moderators have against invaders

This would ideally reduce the chance that the moderators would intervene inappropriately into a player invasion, and if they did, would give the invaders a supporter who could balance the considerable power that the pro-defender moderators may direct against the invaders.

*very irritably*

THE RULES IN THE STICKY IN THIS FORUM ENTITLED "ATTN: INVADERS - Draft version of revised invasion rules!" ARE NOT THE INVASION RULES THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN FORCE IN ANY OFFICIAL, UNOFFICIAL, OR OTHERWISE FASHION.

I am incredibly sick of people saying this when it's NOT TRUE.

Perhaps that thread should be destickied or something?

I am incredibly sick of people saying this when it's NOT TRUE.
Perhaps that thread should be destickied or something?

Agreed, despite the big red letters in the first post, the thread is deceiving.

Perhaps that thread should be destickied or something?
Archived, perhaps?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=321528

Agreed, and is there any way we can get the "real rules" started being formed. Where everyone (defenders, invaders, mods, neutrals) can have a say, and make these rules final?

I agree 100% with DPR, and his findings are evidence that there are really no rules of Invading, as I said in a earlier post. There needs to be a thread that says specifically *Official Rules of Invading/Defending wars* or something similar.

Now mods I respect your power, but I do think its time to come up with something that "most" people or all the above parties agree to. Key word most, because everyone is never happy all the time.

Despite the creation last year of an invaders manual (ATTN: INVADERS - Draft version of revised invasion rules!), I and many other invaders still have considerable concerns about the partisanship of the moderators and their lack of accountability to anyone in the game but themselves.

This thread is still unofficial (see the big red letters in the first post), and is not part of the official rules for Invading/Defending.
Big Invasion/Delegate FAQ (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=301703) holds the official rules for now.

Specifically, moderators have avoided accountability in the following ways:

 Arbitrary creation and/or modification of invasion rules
 Arbitrary un-enforcement of invasion rules
 Inappropriate interference in invasions by moderators
 Arbitrary enforcement of definite rules
 Ambiguous definitions necessary for invasions

Provide examples of such.

Despite the creation of an “un-official” invader handbook, which was created through the consultation of invaders, defenders and moderators, the moderators are still unilaterally creating rules. This means that the moderators act as if they are not accountable to the written rules found in the invader handbook.
Again, the official rules are here: Big Invasion/Delegate FAQ (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=301703)

The arbitrary creation of rules destabilizes the ability of invaders to invade regions. The arbitrary creation of new invasion rules mean that, although invasions are legal, the moderators still have the power to decide which invasions are legal. Their ability to create and change at their personal will means that invader nations can never predictably know the rules of the game and therefore never confidently play it.

The moderators have been consistent on the latest invasions and rulings, seeing as every moderators actions can be reviewed by another. IRC is often a place for the moderators to discuss what should be done in a specific occasion. Again, I fail to see your accusation of 'arbitrary creation of rules'. Perhaps you should provide some solid facts to back you up. The whole meaning of being a moderator is the fact that you should judge fairly, and evenly for each specific case.

I can cite a specific example of moderators arbitrarily inventing rules. For example, in the thread "Delegate Should Be Granted Founder's Powers" started by Jjuulliiaann, Cogitation clearly is inventing in posts #16 and #18 by declaring that invaders can not force nations in an invaded region to endorse the invading delegate.

Cogiation's response.
Ejecting-and-unbanning a small fraction of natives is legal. Ejecting-and-unbanning many natives or ejecting-and-banning any natives is illegal. If he's threatening to eject-and-unban many natives or if he's threatening to eject-and-ban any native, then that's literally threatening to violate NationStates rules. Threatening to violate NationStates rules is, itself, a violation of NationStates rules.

Now here is what is in the Big Invasion/Delegate FAQ sticky in Gameplay.

From this thread:
OK...THERE IS NO SET PERCENTAGE
-Neutered Sputniks
UPDATE: Quote added by Cogitation. Monday, March 1, 2004.

To avoid running afoul of the Mod Squad, Invader Delegates should limit themselves to ejecting ONLY those natives who are a direct threat to the Invader Delegate's position. Also remember that any ejected natives must be removed from the banlist instantly.
-Cogitation (UPDATE: Added by same Monday, March 1, 2004.)

Quite similar, eh? This instance has been in that thread for over a year now.

Even Crazy Girl, a well-known defender, admits that she “never knew” (#17) that rule existed.

We learn something new every day, don't we? :)


Beachcomber (#128) suggests “if a nation has been in a region for X days, it is a native.” Unfortunately, the moderators never agreed to use such a definition, and no specific time frame was ever accepted or adopted officially.
That's because there is no 'specific' time for a nation to become a native to the region. Let's say that an invader delegate takes over a region, ok? After a few months of successfully holding the region, the UN members of the region (natives) begin to endorse him as the UN delegate. If he can get enough endorsements to remain the delegate, without counting the amount he is receiving from his invader allies, then he becomes the native delegate, seeing as the region is now supporting him.

Each case is unique, and a set time limit cannot be established.


More recently, on March 19, 2005, the nation Anstan created a thread in the moderator’s forum I’m Tired of the Spammers to express concern over spamming in The Colonial Entente. Although Cogitation responded to the thread and acknowledged that private warnings were possibly made, no official action was taken in the region on the subject and the spamming continued. During the following week, Anstan and four additional players brought the issue to the attention of the moderators via the forum, complaining that the problem was still unresolved.

The moderators have so many requests that they need to handle, including the Getting Help Page, which is consistently loaded with requests. The moderators are humans too, they sometimes do miss things.

The moderators also do discuss specific rulings with their fellow colleagues, and it may take some time to come down to a decision about it.

There are a number of terms and concepts in Nationstates that are common throughout the game but have remained undefined, and often those definitions are critical in order to invade regions. Such terms and concepts include (but are not limited to): “native,” “founder,” “spamming,” and “recruiting.” The moderators’ refusal or inability to define these concepts has impeded the ability of invaders to conduct and conclude their operations and have often put invaders in opposition to the moderators. The lack of definitions in these circumstances have also made it difficult for non-invaders (and non-defenders) to achieve objectives that are not related to invasions.

One more time...
Big Invasion/Delegate FAQ (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=301703)


The thread "Delegate Should Be Granted Founder's Powers" contains a perfect example of the moderators refusing to resolve disputed definitions. Within an hour and fifteen minutes, four players express their strong support for the creation of a clear definition of native status, and a request for a process in which a native delegate might become a founder. Cogitation (post #5) immediately expresses disapproval of this idea and promises that “I will strongly recommend against this idea” if it were formally proposed. However, Taxachussetts (#14) makes strong arguments that the lack of definition for natives may actually promote griefing by preventing any concrete process for becoming a founder. Cogitation refuses even to comment on this point.

Just because four players showed their support, doesn't mean the moderators should change how they make their rulings. They have said time and time again that it is a rarity for the moderators to appoint a founder themselves. They have simply upheld this rule. Again, it has been said that they consider doing so, only in the case of the region being griefed, which it hasn't been, to my knowledge.


In post #13 of the same thread on founder powers, Cogitation makes an interesting point that there is a simple method the moderators use for determining whether or not a delegate is an invader or a native delegate.
As I explained before, an invader delegate can be considered a native delegate when he receives enough endorsements (not including the non-native endorsements) to stay as the Delegate.

"Originally Posted by Goobergunchia
I am incredibly sick of people saying this when it's NOT TRUE."

Just want to comment on that, I think the reason why it comes up so much is that saying "the rules are un-official" is such a weak and insufficient excuse for not enforcing the rules! According to dictionary.com, a "rule" is "An authoritative, prescribed direction for conduct." "Unofficial-rule" is oxymoronical. It also, as I say above, undermines the rule that says that invasions are legal, because it gives the moderators the chance to determine *which* invasions are legal, and *which* are *not*. That is specifically why I want a review of how the "rules" are currently being enforced and un-enforced.

Thank you for your reply, Euroslavia. I welcome having the opportunity to have a mature discussion about this and I do sincerely appreciate your willingness to engage this issue with me in a rational way. I appreciate knowing your positions.

Having read two threads by you that were very similar, I notice you saying that "this is the way the rules are." And, I'm on the other side saying "this is the way the rules should be." There's no need to repeat that as we move forward with this discussion, as I think we both understand each other thus far.

I feel strongly that there ought to be at least a *review* of the rules in a similar fashion as the thread about the invasion handbook last year. "Review" does not necessarily mean "reform," although I do think the rules need to be reformed. I mean that "review" should mean that we (invaders, defenders, moderators) consider together how well or how badly the handbook has worked over this past year. I think that the way that the handbook got created welcomes such a review in the sense that it admits that it is not the final word on the rules.

Above everything else, what I feel most strongly about is the perception that the rules are riddled with (at the very least) the *possibility* that the enforcement of the rules are *arbitrary* and the very real *possibility* that the moderators sit in their own judgment and therefore free of accountability. There *ought* to be some checks and balances on the moderators to require that accountability and I cannot determine where that accountability on the moderators comes from under the present system of rules.

For instance, and this is just a hypothetical, there is no way of appealing a decision of a moderator who could easily demand "my decision is final." And in such a hypothetical scenario, there's no transparency, so it's impossible to determine how a "final decision" is made and why.

So hopefully as I now withdraw from this conversation, these concerns I have are taken seriously, because they are legitimate concerns I and other invaders have. I also hope that this clarifies my remarks and provides some guidance in future discussions on this topic.

For instance, and this is just a hypothetical, there is no way of appealing a decision of a moderator who could easily demand "my decision is final." And in such a hypothetical scenario, there's no transparency, so it's impossible to determine how a "final decision" is made and why.
As to the appeal questioin, you're simply wrong. There are three levels of appeal: peer review among the moderators, an appeal to salusa (at) nationstates.net, and finally an appeal to admin (at) nationstates.net. I can assure you that all such requests are taken seriously.

As for the transparency issue, well, you're correct. As we discuss information that relates to individual players, you have no automatic 'right ot know' what thoese discussions are about. Since it's a privately owned site, I don't really think anyone else is in a position to second-guess Max about how he chooses his admins and mods or what power he gives them.

Since it's a privately owned site, I don't really think anyone else is in a position to second-guess Max about how he chooses his admins and mods or what power he gives them.

Well, I'd love to hear from Max on this subject. It doesn't seem to make any sense to create a structure that has no real appeal above the moderators, because then players would just appeal moderator decisions to him directly. I'm sure Max doesn't want situations in which moderators really are abusing their authority. It also doesn't seem to make any sense to put anti-invader moderators in charge of a game that explicitly says that invasions are legal. Im not making any accusations here, and that is important that i get that across. But, there do seem to be some odd things here, particularly the lack of accountability and transparency in legal parts of the game.

Like I said, I appreciate the chance to discuss this issue rationally and on the substance of the issues.

We've been asking for a pro-invader mod for nearly 2 years now. The rules have just gotten to the point that you have to jump thru more hoops than a show poodle to pull off an invasion. It's just not worth it anymore. Most of us have just given up invading all together.

I can cite a specific example of moderators arbitrarily inventing rules. For example, in the thread "Delegate Should Be Granted Founder's Powers" started by Jjuulliiaann, Cogitation clearly is inventing in posts #16 and #18 by declaring that invaders can not force nations in an invaded region to endorse the invading delegate. Even Crazy Girl, a well-known defender, admits that she “never knew” (#17) that rule existed. When Cogitation is called on the unilateral rule change, Cogitation simply declares (#20) that common policy was being "re-iterat[ed]." But if that was common policy, then how come no one knew it existed prior to Cogitation's declaration?

Okay... while I admit I didn't have time to read your entire speal (as quite a few have... and I read their analysises) I would like to just mention that *I* did in fact know of the rule that Cogitation re-iterated. While it may be somewhat of a "common-law" doctrine (quite often common sence) he did feel the need to say that it does in fact exist since some people were looking for a loophole. The way to look at it is... "Endorse me, or I'll grief you." Just because a person is "asking" to be griefed by not endorsing them... it is STILL griefing... and as someone else here pointed out (Cogitation himself I belive) posting intent to break the rules is the same as breaking them.

As to my background (not that anyone cares) but I've been on both sides of the fence... defending and invading. I will admit that the rules favor the defender a bit... but isn't that true of real combat? The DEFENDER picks the place of the battle in most cases, has a chance to dig in, etc. What the OFFENDER has in his favor, is the element of suprise... get in... take the region and hold it for a few days and gloat, then move out... do you really want more than that?

*NOTE* Ish not a mod */NOTE*

Okay... while I admit I didn't have time to read your entire speal (as quite a few have... and I read their analysises) I would like to just mention that *I* did in fact know of the rule that Cogitation re-iterated. While it may be somewhat of a "common-law" doctrine (quite often common sence) he did feel the need to say that it does in fact exist since some people were looking for a loophole. The way to look at it is... "Endorse me, or I'll grief you." Just because a person is "asking" to be griefed by not endorsing them... it is STILL griefing... and as someone else here pointed out (Cogitation himself I belive) posting intent to break the rules is the same as breaking them.*NOTE* Ish not a mod */NOTE*

Let's say this is true, which I respectfully dispute. How does anyone know that is the *"official" version of the rules? How does one distinguish what is "official" from what is "un-official?" I mean this rhetorically. To answer my own question, the answer lies in "the mods say it's so." Well, I'm sure you can anticipate my displeasure with that answer because it means that the rules of the game are unknowable unless you happen to be Cogitation or you can read Cogitation's mind. In other words, the rules are *arbitrary* and games that are played by arbitrary rules are un-winnable.

As to my background (not that anyone cares) but I've been on both sides of the fence... defending and invading. I will admit that the rules favor the defender a bit... but isn't that true of real combat? The DEFENDER picks the place of the battle in most cases, has a chance to dig in, etc. What the OFFENDER has in his favor, is the element of suprise... get in... take the region and hold it for a few days and gloat, then move out... do you really want more than that?

*NOTE* Ish not a mod */NOTE*

I appreciate what you are trying to do here, but I think that it is ultimately unhelpful to speculate about this. I also disagree with your diction, I'd prefer invader over "offender" since invasion is now officially and explicitly a legal part of the game. I also dispute the notion that all invaders want to hold regions temporarily - there are some invaders, like myself, who'd prefer to hold regions as long as possible, and I don't care to elaborate why. In such cases, the definitions of natives and founders become absolutely essential to gameplay.

And I just want to add, I think Nothingg's experience is all to common and understandable. it is ultimately regrettable that it's come to that for you. some one or something should be held to account for that.

Let's say this is true, which I respectfully dispute. How does anyone know that is the *"official" version of the rules? How does one distinguish what is "official" from what is "un-official?" I mean this rhetorically. To answer my own question, the answer lies in "the mods say it's so." Well, I'm sure you can anticipate my displeasure with that answer because it means that the rules of the game are unknowable unless you happen to be Cogitation or you can read Cogitation's mind. In other words, the rules are *arbitrary* and games that are played by arbitrary rules are un-winnable.



I appreciate what you are trying to do here, but I think that it is ultimately unhelpful to speculate about this. I also disagree with your diction, I'd prefer invader over "offender" since invasion is now officially and explicitly a legal part of the game. I also dispute the notion that all invaders want to hold regions temporarily - there are some invaders, like myself, who'd prefer to hold regions as long as possible, and I don't care to elaborate why. In such cases, the definitions of natives and founders become absolutely essential to gameplay.

And I just want to add, I think Nothingg's experience is all to common and understandable. it is ultimately regrettable that it's come to that for you. some one or something should be held to account for that.

Okay... fair enough... use Invader rather than offender... trying to draw a RL analogy

The absolute BEST way to stay on the safe side of the law... is that if it seems questionable... ask BEFORE doing it...

As to the length of time... it is quite likely that you can hold a region indefinately... I've had a few of my soldiers hold a region for 80+ days... you never have to ever kick the natives (save for the delegate who was there when you got in) and just watch the doors for "defenders"

*NOTE* Ish not a mod */NOTE*

The creation of an official code of rules that is based on the result of those discussions

Yes, a year later and were still discussing about creating official rules...? If it hasnt happened by now, I doubt it will ever happen, this is a computer game, it shouldnt take this long to argue invasion rule changes back and fourth. I think they have already decided (unofficially), the mods prefer the rules to be general, they have more freedom to judge in their own way. Its been a while. The mods will change the rules when they feel like it.

Right, and just so we're clear Cosmo, I'm suggesting there be a review of the "unofficial rules," apparently the mods are resisting even that basic request. The basis for such a request I think is justifiable given the amount of documentable situations in which arbitrarness can be still found in the rules a year later.

It shouldn't be up to just the mods to change the rules. It's a huge problem that it is.

We've been asking for a pro-invader mod for nearly 2 years now. The rules have just gotten to the point that you have to jump thru more hoops than a show poodle to pull off an invasion. It's just not worth it anymore. Most of us have just given up invading all together.

Agreed, I almost did myself. Though thanks to Dred Pirate showed me what I'm missing. If not already the "newest" perspective thread of invading should be stickeied (sp?).

Also may it be my suggestion that there is a seperate forum on the Nationstates site that has just these issues of Defending and Invading. I mean Role Players have their own forum on here, why not defenders and invaders. Maybe the disputes won't always make it to the moderation table then, and can be worked out by the peirs of the dispute. Then can be settled peacefully.

That's a great idea about having a thread on the forum for invaders and defenders. I happen to think that *would* reduce the amount of moderator interference in invasions. And, I think that a reduce presence of the moderators in the game would be a good thing for every body.

The way is now, the moderators have (*still*) wa-ay too much involvement in what happens, and despite the mods grumbling about having too much to do, I think that they happen to like being at the center of every controversy. But, designing the rules in such a way that every dispute comes through the moderators is an inappropriate use of moderator authority.

According to dictionary.com, "moderator" is "One that arbitrates" and arbitrates means "To resolve or settle (differences) by working with all the conflicting parties." So there's a strong sense a "moderator" is a neutral third party to the dispute who is sought by both parties as a resolver of differences. If one of the parties knew that the chosen arbiter was partisan to one of the sides, then the party would most likely seek a different arbitor.

There's really no way of doing this in this game. I've sent complaints to Salusa and to the admin. I've never received any responses. And why would they respond if they too are partisan and determined not to even acknowledge my strong concerns?

So how about it Mods? Would it be possible to do something like that? For we can debate things in a civilized mannor? Instead of running to you every time something doesn't go our way?

That's a great idea about having a thread on the forum for invaders and defenders. I happen to think that *would* reduce the amount of moderator interference in invasions. And, I think that a reduce presence of the moderators in the game would be a good thing for every body. So how about it Mods? Would it be possible to do something like that? For we can debate things in a civilized mannor? Instead of running to you every time something doesn't go our way?

What the Gameplay Forum is for, in a general sense
The Gameplay Forum is therefore broadly for NS World issues, not Forum issues. This would include:

Discussion of in-game technical maneuvres and the underlying politics, more specifically:

Regional politics, inter-regional relations, rivalries and alliances.
Discussion of and responses to events in NS World, such as diplomatic crises, etc.
The merits, tactics and etiquette of region crashing and defending.

Nobody is stopping you from using the Gameplay forum as intended. Have at it.

If somebody complains to the moderation staff, we'll still get involved, though. That's why we're here.

Isn't it a good idea to put a link to these set of rules on the (main) page - or some other of NationStates? I don't think all invaders ever read these forums, so it might be a good idea.

Isn't it a good idea to put a link to these set of rules on the (main) page - or some other of NationStates? I don't think all invaders ever read these forums, so it might be a good idea.


I've wrote what I train all my troops to follow... I've been told it isn't perfect (yet never got an official ruling from the mods... got tired of bumping it) but if you wanna suggest the link in my sig to them... be my guest

Nobody is stopping you from using the Gameplay forum as intended. Have at it.

If somebody complains to the moderation staff, we'll still get involved, though. That's why we're here.

Well, but then some players who are "Neutral" would come to you guys claiming its spam right? And I think the Players of the game should have some say of the rules, because, no offence, there is a lot that goes on that you guys [Mods] dont see. And plus I guess that the Invading rules dont really apply to you guys so thus you wouldnt really have a motive to reveiw them because you think they are fine right? I have played both sides of the game and I agree, the defenders have an edge as far as rules go, but shouldnt there be a list of Defender rules too? Isnt that being a little biased that you only have written rules concerning Invaders?

I'll begin with my Standard Disclaimer in the beginning, just so we're clear on this.

I am not a Moderator. If I were a Moderator, I wouldn't tolerate invasion. My idea of "fun" does not involve gatecrashing someone else's party.

Now, on with the commentary.

 Arbitrary creation and/or modification of invasion rules
 Arbitrary un-enforcement of invasion rules
 Inappropriate interference in invasions by moderators
 Arbitrary enforcement of definite rules
 Ambiguous definitions necessary for invasionsAfter "bullying" Dred into taking the discussion on IRC to a separate channel, I thought I might step in and give my two cents on the matter.

 Arbitrary creation and/or modification of invasion rules

The thread detailing proposed rules for invasion/defense is labeled as unofficial for a reason. Until the Moderation staff can come down with a final decision, they are to be considered guidelines. When the final rules are set, people will be notified. It's really just that simple. Ruling on problems with invasions isn't easy, or the process would have been finished long ago. As with all things in Nationstates, it's best to err on the side of caution.

 Arbitrary un-enforcement of invasion rules

Since the rules for invasion aren't finalised, you're going to get some variance in rulings between Moderators, depending on which Moderator comes on the scene. This is typical of Moderator behaviour, because unlike rumours to the contrary, they are not a unified collective. They're individuals performing a thankless task for no reward in their spare time. If you disagree with a Moderator decision, you always have the option of asking for a review or appealing to the Admin if the review doesn't go the way you like.

 Inappropriate interference in invasions by moderators

Who defines "inappropriate?" That's a rather bald statement to make. The Moderators define what is appropriate or inappropriate. See my previous statement.

 Arbitrary enforcement of definite rules

Since we've established that the rules regarding invasion/defense haven't been finalised, there can be no "definite rules" regarding the matter. There may be precedents, but ultimately, all Moderator actions come down to rulings on a case-by-case basis. I don't see the problem. If you follow the guidelines that have been proposed, you're less likely (but not guaranteed) to have one take interest.

 Ambiguous definitions necessary for invasions

This is probably a good part of why the rules haven't been finalised. There's a lot of gray area involved, and the Moderators probably aren't confident with the definitions being proposed. Again, your best bet is to err on the side of caution.

In the end, it seems to me that you're trying to pin down the Moderation staff to something they haven't agreed to. Since they're ultimately the ones who have the final say in the matter, you'll just have to wait for them to figure something out. You can make all the constructive suggestions you can think of, but I think blasting them for not following rules that aren't official is going to be counter-productive.

And just to make sure there's no confusion, I am not a member of the Moderation staff. I don't want to be one, and you don't want me to be one either.

bling I hate to tell you but defenders have to follow the same rules too.....I think....

Treznor,

Thank you for your response, and I as mentioned to Euroslavia, thank you for engaging this issue rationally on the substance and merits of the issue. Now to addresss to your specific points, which I already have addressed at length elsewhere, but they are important so I am not at all hesitant about bringing them up again.

"This is probably a good part of why the rules haven't been finalised. There's a lot of gray area involved, and the Moderators probably aren't confident with the definitions being proposed. "

This I strongly agree with you about. I completely recognize the possibility that the moderators *aren't able* to come to consensus on certain definitions and rules. I *understand* this. But their inability to come to a consensus on some of this is difficult to comprehend, particularly given the fact that we are a year out from the last player-involved discussion on the invasion rules.

It is precisely why I suggest that the creation of a rules committee populated by mods, invaders and defenders (all three) so that a fairer consensus can be made with more sides and interested parties represented. With such a rules committee, the ability to come to some fair definitions might be achievable because the pressure is taken off the shoulders of just the mods and shared with reps of invaders and defenders.

I still think, incidentally, that Martian Puppets' suggestions on Page 9, thread #122 contains a lot of useful ideas, definitions and reforms, and that ought to be taken much more seriously than it has been.

"Who defines "inappropriate?" That's a rather bald statement to make. The Moderators define what is appropriate or inappropriate. See my previous statement."

I'm addressing this first because you are the first to do so and this really goes to the nut of the matter. It's inappropriate that moderators sit in judgement of their own conduct! By involving themselves in an legal aspect of the game and taking sides, they are rigging the rules of the game in favor of whatever purpose they have in being involved.

The way is now, the moderators have (*still*) wa-ay too much involvement in what happens, and despite the mods grumbling about having too much to do, I think that they happen to like being at the center of every controversy. But, designing the rules in such a way that every dispute comes through the moderators is an inappropriate use of moderator authority.

According to dictionary.com, "moderator" is "One that arbitrates" and arbitrates means "To resolve or settle (differences) by working with all the conflicting parties." So there's a strong sense a "moderator" is a neutral third party to the dispute who is sought by both parties as a resolver of differences. The word is "NEUTRAL." If one of the parties knew that the chosen arbiter was *NOT* neutral (partisan to one of the sides), then the party would most likely seek a different arbitor.

But in N/S, invaders *can't* seek a different arbitor, despite the fact that there are documentable instances of moderators (not just siding with but) ACTING as defenders. We're *stuck* with them. And there's no appealing their decisions, especially if they already revived a founder who kicked all the invaders out or already deleted an invader delegate for specious reasons.

So, to answer your question, *I* am saying that it is inappropriate. In my opinion, it *is* inappropriate. I know that *other invaders* strongly agree with me.

Incidentally, by deflecting the conversation onto the use of a word, you deflected the conversation onto me rather than try to deny that the mods did intervene on these specific invasions. Why is that?

Also, this has been bothering me for a while, and this is an appropriate time to raise this. You, Treznor, have an animus against invaders. Look at this link here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8022595&postcount=227 You say here clearly that you wish invasion wasn't legal. That's fine, that's your opinion, but it's highly relevent in this discussion because it says that you've already made up your mind on this point. I just want other people to be able to see it as they read this thread and make up their minds.

"Since we've established that the rules regarding invasion/defense haven't been finalised, there can be no "definite rules" regarding the matter. "

How carefully did you read this section of my thread? There *are* definite rules of the game. First, invasion is officially legal. Second, no spamming (whatever that means). Third, limits on powers of invader delegates. According to Cogitation as of this morning, these are "official" rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=408488 post ##4 and 6). And according to the situations that I documented, there are least two instances (and probably more) in which the moderators have chosen not to enforce *"official"*rules when it didn't suit them to.

And how does anyone know that is the *"official" version of the rules? How does one distinguish what is "official" from what is "un-official?" I mean this rhetorically. To answer my own question, the answer lies in "the mods say it's so." Well, I'm sure you can anticipate my displeasure with that answer because it means that the rules of the game are unknowable unless you happen to be Cogitation or you can read Cogitation's mind. In other words, the rules are *arbitrary* and games that are played by arbitrary rules are un-winnable.

"Since the rules for invasion aren't finalised,..."

Yeah, yeah, I think this is an amazingly weak and insufficient answer, and I'm not alone here. Finalize them then! They've only been un-official for a year now, haven't they?

According to dictionary.com, a "rule" is "An authoritative, prescribed direction for conduct." The phrase "Unofficial rule" is therefore oxymoronical. It also undermines the rule that says that invasions are legal, because it gives the moderators the chance to determine *which* invasions are legal, and *which* are *not*. With no official rules, it is still left to the arbitrary opinion of the moderators which invasions are legal.

It also means that the entire exercise of appealing to nationstates players when constructing the handbook is a complete waste and a fraud. If none of the players’ contributions actually help to construct the rules of the game, then the entire 16 pages of player contributions is an exercise in futility. The moderators ought to have considered the experience of players and used those experiences to create a fairer and more complete conception of the rules of the game.

That is specifically why I want a review of how the "rules" are currently being enforced and un-enforced.

Well, but then some players who are "Neutral" would come to you guys claiming its spam right? And I think the Players of the game should have some say of the rules, because, no offence, there is a lot that goes on that you guys [Mods] dont see. And plus I guess that the Invading rules dont really apply to you guys so thus you wouldnt really have a motive to reveiw them because you think they are fine right? I have played both sides of the game and I agree, the defenders have an edge as far as rules go, but shouldnt there be a list of Defender rules too? Isnt that being a little biased that you only have written rules concerning Invaders?

Well, seeing as defenders (strictly) don't do anything but defend, I don't see how you can set a specific amount of rules for them (to compare to the amount of rules that invaders must follow). The invaders are the ones going into other regions, trying to take them over, while defenders merely try to save the region from being captured. Invaders obviously do more, so they have more sets of rules to follow. It's only logical. If you can come up with some great rules for defenders to follow, then by all means, propose them.

Well, seeing as defenders (strictly) don't do anything but defend, I don't see how you can set a specific amount of rules for them (to compare to the amount of rules that invaders must follow). The invaders are the ones going into other regions, trying to take them over, while defenders merely try to save the region from being captured. Invaders obviously do more, so they have more sets of rules to follow. It's only logical. If you can come up with some great rules for defenders to follow, then by all means, propose them.


There are some defender groups that go into regions they believe are ruled by invader delegates. Some of these defender groups are allied to the ADN

There are some defender groups that go into regions they believe are ruled by invader delegates. Some of these defender groups are allied to the ADN

Well and for instance when the DEN was taken by TITO. I was ejected and I believe I am still on the ban list, and yes I know I was not a native, but then why were the DEN Natives that had endorsements ejected too? They were ejected over Update and then lost thier endorsements, then about a half hour after she ejected us, she unbanned us. I have been Deleted because I banned someone and I took them off the Ban list 5 min. later. I am not nesscicarly meaning that we should make a whole new list of "Defender Rules" but I am asking for consistenciy. If an Invader is deleted for banning someone and unbanning them, defenders should be treated the same.

There are some defender groups that go into regions they believe are ruled by invader delegates. Some of these defender groups are allied to the ADN

Despite the fact that they are 'defender groups', going into a region with intent on taking it over (whether its controlled by an enemy invader or not) is still considered 'invading'.

Despite the fact that they are 'defender groups', going into a region with intent on taking it over (whether its controlled by an enemy invader or not) is still considered 'invading'.
Right, thats what hes saying. The rules need to apply to everyone, not just Invaders.

Well and for instance when the DEN was taken by TITO. I was ejected and I believe I am still on the ban list, and yes I know I was not a native, but then why were the DEN Natives that had endorsements ejected too? They were ejected over Update and then lost thier endorsements, then about a half hour after she ejected us, she unbanned us. I have been Deleted because I banned someone and I took them off the Ban list 5 min. later. I am not nesscicarly meaning that we should make a whole new list of "Defender Rules" but I am asking for consistenciy. If an Invader is deleted for banning someone and unbanning them, defenders should be treated the same.

Why exactly should defenders be held to the same rules, when its their own region that's at risk of being taken? They are the natives, the people are dwell in that region, rather than the invaders, who come in and try to take a region that they probably don't even understand, away from the defenders, most of whom have been there for at least a decent amount of time. Ejecting invaders is an effective way at keeping their region. When an invader delegate ejects a native, they are ejecting them from their home region. There are reasons why invaders are held to strict rules.

Right, thats what hes saying. The rules need to apply to everyone, not just Invaders.

They do, in fact, apply to everyone. Anyone who participates in an invasion is held to the rules of invading, whether they are part of a group of defenders or not. It all comes down to who obeys the rules, who breaks the rules, and who reports them, or not.

Why exactly should defenders be held to the same rules, when its their own region that's at risk of being taken? They are the natives, the people are dwell in that region, rather than the invaders, who come in and try to take a region that they probably don't even understand, away from the defenders, most of whom have been there for at least a decent amount of time. Ejecting invaders is an effective way at keeping their region. When an invader delegate ejects a native, they are ejecting them from their home region. There are reasons why invaders are held to strict rules.


Then the DEN isnt a home for people also? NATIVES of the DEN were ejected, I understand the Defender part about keeping Invaders out. But what I gathered from your post is that Invaders dont have a home. What happens when someone takes over an Invader region and starts ejecting natives? Is it ok to do that when your Invading another group of Invaders?

Then the DEN isnt a home for people also? NATIVES of the DEN were ejected, I understand the Defender part about keeping Invaders out. But what I gathered from your post is that Invaders dont have a home. What happens when someone takes over an Invader region and starts ejecting natives? Is it ok to do that when your Invading another group of Invaders?

At the point that an invaders' home is invaded, and they are natives of that region, then their position obviously becomes that of a defender. There is a lot of role-switching when it comes to invading/defending, that's for sure.

Despite the fact that they are 'defender groups', going into a region with intent on taking it over (whether its controlled by an enemy invader or not) is still considered 'invading'.

Right, so what's your point again? I thought you were saying that defenders don't invade. The fact that defenders do invade regions (for whatever purpose) just like invaders weakens that argument.

At the point that an invaders' home is invaded, and they are natives of that region, then their position obviously becomes that of a defender. There is a lot of role-switching when it comes to invading/defending, that's for sure.

Right there sure is. Just to point out the agreement here, and to suggest that it's not just in invaders' interest to have official rules since it's not just "the invaders" who are doing all of the invading.

Right, so what's your point again? I thought you were saying that defenders don't invade. The fact that defenders do invade regions (for whatever purpose) just like invaders weakens that argument.



Right there sure is. Just to point out the agreement here, and to suggest that it's not just in invaders' interest to have official rules since it's not just "the invaders" who are doing all of the invading.
Right, Thats what I am trying to say.

Right, so what's your point again? I thought you were saying that defenders don't invade. The fact that defenders do invade regions (for whatever purpose) just like invaders weakens that argument.
I never said that defenders dont invade. There are some that do. I personally know a few of them. I was strictly talking about those defenders who stay in one region, and have no interest in invading.



Right there sure is. Just to point out the agreement here, and to suggest that it's not just in invaders' interest to have official rules since it's not just "the invaders" who are doing all of the invading.

Again, when I was talking about why defenders shouldn't have the same amount of rules as invaders, I was strictly talking about those who stayed as defenders and did not participate in invasions. I probably should have clarified that in the beginning, sorry for the confusion. I do understand what you are saying though. Defenders who temporarily become invaders should be held by the invading rules, and from what I've seen, they are held to such rules.

I do understand what you are saying though. Defenders who temporarily become invaders should be held by the invading rules, and from what I've seen, they are held to such rules.

I dont know what battles your watching...

Remember where you are, folks. Let's keep this civil and on-topic.

I dont know what battles your watching...

If you see something illegal, simply report it to the moderators, or if you have a hunch that what someone is doing is illegal, then go right ahead and ask a moderator to review it. Sometimes, you have to take things into your own hands for things to be fair. The moderators can't see everything that goes on in NS. :)

I never said that defenders dont invade. There are some that do. I personally know a few of them. I was strictly talking about those defenders who stay in one region, and have no interest in invading.

Again, when I was talking about why defenders shouldn't have the same amount of rules as invaders, I was strictly talking about those who stayed as defenders and did not participate in invasions. I probably should have clarified that in the beginning, sorry for the confusion. I do understand what you are saying though. Defenders who temporarily become invaders should be held by the invading rules, and from what I've seen, they are held to such rules.

We could quibble about this, because a defender who never leaves a region sounds to me like a role player and not a defender. But, I'm not going to pursue that argument with any conviction because I do see the distinction you are trying to make and appreciate your willingness to seek agreement. I think that agreement, even on small points, is essential in this discussion. Frankly, I would like to see more such agreement from the mods. I would give me some assurances that this isn't just another exercise in futility that the "unofficial rules" thread evidently is.

We could quibble about this, because a defender who never leaves a region sounds to me like a role player and not a defender. But, I'm not going to pursue that argument with any conviction because I do see the distinction you are trying to make and appreciate your willingness to seek agreement. I think that agreement, even on small points, is essential in this discussion. Frankly, I would like to see more such agreement from the mods. I would give me some assurances that this isn't just another exercise in futility that the "unofficial rules" thread evidently is.

Just for a little more clarification, a defender can still technically be a defender in another region (despite not being a native). There are regions out there that are allied with each other, so that if an invasion took place, the defenders from the allied region would come to the rescue. Determining who is a defender and who is an invader would be quite simple by checking who the nation endorses, the proposed invader delegate, or the native delegate.

If you see something illegal, simply report it to the moderators, or if you have a hunch that what someone is doing is illegal, then go right ahead and ask a moderator to review it. Sometimes, you have to take things into your own hands for things to be fair. The moderators can't see everything that goes on in NS. :)
And I have done that, I think about 15 of us reported to the mods about the DEN ejections and nothing was done.

And I have done that, I think about 15 of us reported to the mods about the DEN ejections and nothing was done.


This is where my jurisdiction ends. I wish I knew exactly why nothing was done, but perhaps a moderator can clarify exactly why nothing was done, or if something was done, why you weren't notified. Good luck with that!

And I have done that, I think about 15 of us reported to the mods about the DEN ejections and nothing was done.

And what about the "north Atlantic" situation that I mentioned, or the spamming in The Colonial Entente? Or when the mods revived deleted founders in Massachussetts, China and Japan and allowed the revived founder to eject the invaders? When that happens, the mods are crossing a line from neutral third party to belligerent partisan.

Losing an invasion to defenders is part of the game. But it's an injustice when the mods wreck an invasion because doing so means that the mods are violating the pretense of their neutrality AND because NO ONE sits in judgement of the moderators and there is NO ONE to appeal the action they took!

And what about the "north Atlantic" situation that I mentioned, or the spamming in The Colonial Entente? Or when the mods revived deleted founders in Massachussetts, China and Japan and allowed the revived founder to eject the invaders? When that happens, the mods are crossing a line from neutral third party to belligerent partisan.

Losing an invasion to defenders is part of the game. But it's an injustice when the mods wreck an invasion because doing so means that the mods are violating the pretense of their neutrality AND because NO ONE sits in judgement of the moderators and there is NO ONE to appeal the action they took!

Actually, there are people to appeal to.
Salusa@nationstates.net

Actually, there are people to appeal to.
Salusa@nationstates.net
Or just use the IRC channel.

funny thing i heard...

mods don't make a difference between defenders and invaders, they are all considered invaders by them, and they must all follow the same set of rules.

funny thing i heard...

mods don't make a difference between defenders and invaders, they are all considered invaders by them, and they must all follow the same set of rules.

Well that solves it all. :)

And what about the "north Atlantic" situation that I mentioned, or the spamming in The Colonial Entente? Or when the mods revived deleted founders in Massachussetts, China and Japan and allowed the revived founder to eject the invaders? When that happens, the mods are crossing a line from neutral third party to belligerent partisan.

Losing an invasion to defenders is part of the game. But it's an injustice when the mods wreck an invasion because doing so means that the mods are violating the pretense of their neutrality AND because NO ONE sits in judgement of the moderators and there is NO ONE to appeal the action they took!

Are you saying that the people, your every-day average player, who created the founder nations, aren't allowed to use the Getting Help Page's "Restore A Deleted Nation" (or in the past the "Other: Responce to moderator") when the nation had died due to inactivity; when they notice the region they founded is under attack?

Once the founder is back, they are allowed to do whatever they want, except the offencies everyone is bound to obey in NS. Should the founder eject all the invaders, defenders, natives or people who have too many "a"s in their name to the founder's liking, there's nothing anyone can do.

Or when the mods revived deleted founders in Massachussetts, China and Japan and allowed the revived founder to eject the invaders? When that happens, the mods are crossing a line from neutral third party to belligerent partisan.

Pardon my vulgarity, but bullshit.

Founder nations are allowed to be restored just like any other nation. To deny that would be siding with the Invaders. Furthermore, the owner of the Founder has to be the one requesting. It's not like we hand out passwords here. An unconnected Defender could request Founder restorations all day long, but if they don't have the password it won't do them a bit of good.

What are you going to complain about next? That we allow natives to join the UN?

You and Cogitation make the rest of us jump through mental gymnastics to insist to us that founders can't be reset, ever. But then, in three invasions of regions you revive the founders, and all three moments before the invasion is about to win!? Hmmm, amazing how that works. Do you admit there's at least an inconsistency here?

I've already brought this to the attention of you supervisors (and I do expect a response), so thanks for giving me a concrete example that I can point to and say, "here, look, the mods are not only un-responsive but they really do think they can play the game and moderate it at the same time." And no, I don't pardon your vulgarity because you are only raising the emotional temperature of this thread. If you were not a mod, you would be reported for flaming this conversation.

And no, I don't pardon your vulgarity because you are only raising the emotional temperature of this thread. If you were not a mod, you would be reported for flaming this conversation.
I don't believe that calling a statement bullshit is counted as flaming, as I've seen it done many a time, even here in Moderation, with no moderator action taken.


About the rest of your post, it seems you are finding a conspiracy where no conspiracy exists. It would appear to me that you failed to read Hack's statement that founders are revived upon request, and only then, the same as all other players.
Might it be that there have been plenty of other founders revived that you don't know of?
Might it be that the natives of the region contacted the player behind the founder to tell them to get their nation revived?
I don't know of the situation, but it seems to me as though there are a great many more simple explanations than a mod conspiracy.

Disclaimer thingie: Not a mod, not official, just another player, and all that other stuff too.

This I strongly agree with you about. I completely recognize the possibility that the moderators *aren't able* to come to consensus on certain definitions and rules. I *understand* this. But their inability to come to a consensus on some of this is difficult to comprehend, particularly given the fact that we are a year out from the last player-involved discussion on the invasion rules.On the one hand, you acknowledge that the moderators aren't able to come to a consensus. On the other hand, you can't comprehend that the moderators can't come to a consensus.

Maybe it's just not as simple as you think it should be.

It is precisely why I suggest that the creation of a rules committee populated by mods, invaders and defenders (all three) so that a fairer consensus can be made with more sides and interested parties represented. With such a rules committee, the ability to come to some fair definitions might be achievable because the pressure is taken off the shoulders of just the mods and shared with reps of invaders and defenders.This strikes me as very similar to other "democratic" means of moderating the forums. Without any official standing on which to say this, I can hazard a guess that your chances of seeing this happen are slim to none. The moderation staff have generally indicated they are not interested in moderation by committee. I acknowledge the possibility they might make an exception in this case, but I wouldn't depend on it.

I'm addressing this first because you are the first to do so and this really goes to the nut of the matter. It's inappropriate that moderators sit in judgement of their own conduct! By involving themselves in an legal aspect of the game and taking sides, they are rigging the rules of the game in favor of whatever purpose they have in being involved.I believe this was mentioned in IRC, and my response then is the same as my response now: if a Moderator is unable to set aside their own preferences/bias in order to effectively moderate, then they need to step down before they have to be stripped of their position.

If you have concrete examples of a Moderator participating in an invasion or defense and abusing their status to do so, then please call our attention to it. Otherwise you're making spurious claims that do nothing but sow suspicion and dissent over folk who are not doing this job for their own benefit. Far from it.

The way is now, the moderators have (*still*) wa-ay too much involvement in what happens, and despite the mods grumbling about having too much to do, I think that they happen to like being at the center of every controversy. But, designing the rules in such a way that every dispute comes through the moderators is an inappropriate use of moderator authority.You're welcome to your opinion. Unfortunately for you, it isn't your call. I think it's appropriate that the moderators keep a close eye on invasions, because more than anything else invasions have the potential to really ruin the game for others. Yes, this is my very clear and unrepentant bias against invasion talking, but I'm also entitled to my opinion. Either way, it's not up to us. The Moderators make the rules based on what Max Barry has told them he wants, and it's up to us to follow them whether we like it or not.

According to dictionary.com, "moderator" is "One that arbitrates" and arbitrates means "To resolve or settle (differences) by working with all the conflicting parties." So there's a strong sense a "moderator" is a neutral third party to the dispute who is sought by both parties as a resolver of differences. The word is "NEUTRAL." If one of the parties knew that the chosen arbiter was *NOT* neutral (partisan to one of the sides), then the party would most likely seek a different arbitor.This is all well and good, but we're using the term "moderator" based on the usage developed in the Usenet newsgroups. That is, someone who monitors a text-based medium for content to make sure that participants are operating within the rules both explicit and implicit. In every case, the moderator has final say regarding what is or isn't legal. Dictionary definitions are irrelevant here.

But in N/S, invaders *can't* seek a different arbitor, despite the fact that there are documentable instances of moderators (not just siding with but) ACTING as defenders. We're *stuck* with them. And there's no appealing their decisions, especially if they already revived a founder who kicked all the invaders out or already deleted an invader delegate for specious reasons.You always have recourse, as has been pointed out innumerable times. You can appeal to the moderation staff for a review of the action taken by a specific moderator. If that doesn't go your way, you can email admin@nationstates.net for a final appeal. If that doesn't go your way, then you're just SOL.

So, to answer your question, *I* am saying that it is inappropriate. In my opinion, it *is* inappropriate. I know that *other invaders* strongly agree with me.I'm sure there are other invaders who agree with you. I know that *other defenders* strongly agree with my point of view. I know this because our regional forums have a special place just for matters of regional security against invaders, and I know they'd be far happier if they didn't have to deal with it. Otherwise, to date they've been largely satisfied with the record of the moderators.

Incidentally, by deflecting the conversation onto the use of a word, you deflected the conversation onto me rather than try to deny that the mods did intervene on these specific invasions. Why is that?Probably because I don't deny that moderators will intervene in invasions when they feel it necessary. It is, after all, their job to decide such things. I didn't bother looking up your specific invasions in part because you didn't provide any links but largely because I just don't care about them.

I apologise if I deflected the conversation; it was unintentional. I expect I was attempting to illustrate the fact that many of your complaints center around the moderators doing the job they were enlisted to do.

Also, this has been bothering me for a while, and this is an appropriate time to raise this. You, Treznor, have an animus against invaders. Look at this link here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8022595&postcount=227 You say here clearly that you wish invasion wasn't legal. That's fine, that's your opinion, but it's highly relevent in this discussion because it says that you've already made up your mind on this point. I just want other people to be able to see it as they read this thread and make up their minds.I'm glad you brought that up. I never claimed to be sympathetic or even neutral with regard to the practice of invasion. As I said above, I am unrepentant in my bias against it. I do not consider ruining someone else's fun to be a valid form of entertainment. Invasion walks a fine line before it becomes griefing, and as you've aptly illustrated, that line is difficult to fully define.

Think of it this way: I'm providing a counterpoint to your stance for invasions. In the thread you reference I did not demand that invasion be made illegal; I know that won't happen. But I made some suggestions to offset the impact invasion can have on folk who don't want to participate, or can't because they aren't in the UN. If that isn't a reasoned response, I don't know what is.

How carefully did you read this section of my thread? There *are* definite rules of the game. First, invasion is officially legal. Second, no spamming (whatever that means). Third, limits on powers of invader delegates. According to Cogitation as of this morning, these are "official" rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=408488 post ##4 and 6). And according to the situations that I documented, there are least two instances (and probably more) in which the moderators have chosen not to enforce *"official"*rules when it didn't suit them to.

And how does anyone know that is the *"official" version of the rules? How does one distinguish what is "official" from what is "un-official?" I mean this rhetorically. To answer my own question, the answer lies in "the mods say it's so." Well, I'm sure you can anticipate my displeasure with that answer because it means that the rules of the game are unknowable unless you happen to be Cogitation or you can read Cogitation's mind. In other words, the rules are *arbitrary* and games that are played by arbitrary rules are un-winnable.My heart bleeds for you. Truly. However, my statement goes back to the earlier point that the moderation staff has yet to finalise the guidelines regarding invasions. The only definitive rules I know of are those found in the section where you have to click "accept" in order to start a new nation. You can find them again in the FAQ from the list on the left of your main nation page.

Ultimately, it goes back to the fact that the moderation staff doesn't really know how to uniformly moderate invasions. Cogitation is one of the more active mods out in the trenches (with notable activity from Frisbeeteria and Scolopendra), and active mods tend to set precedent. Don't like a decision they made? Appeal it. Is it possible that Cogitation made a mistake? Sure; he'll be the first to acknowledge the fact.

Why wouldn't moderators choose to enforce a rule? Possibly because they don't know about them. See the first sentence in my previous paragraph. Possibly because they're unsure of how to enforce them. Possibly because they're not sure of the status of a rule, so they err on the side of caution. And maybe because there's some disagreement about a rule, so not everyone is on the same page. And maybe some moderators have lives that place limits on their activity, preventing them from spending every moment firming up rules and judging everything with a single mind. I don't know.

It isn't fair that you have to operate under such uncertainty. I'll grant that. However, that's about as far as my sympathy goes. Bringing it up in the forums is a good thing. Working with the moderators with regards to those rules is a good thing. Accusing the moderators of corruption and unjust behaviour is not. You'll get out of this what you put into it. All moderators are volunteers, usually selected because they were observed and judged to be level and fair-minded individuals. However, they are all human and all subject to human foibles. One such foible includes being insulted for doing their best.

"Since the rules for invasion aren't finalised,..."

Yeah, yeah, I think this is an amazingly weak and insufficient answer, and I'm not alone here. Finalize them then! They've only been un-official for a year now, haven't they?Again, my heart bleeds for you. If this were easy to resolve, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? I point it out because it's true: the moderators are responsible for deciding on and enforcing the rules. The delay suggests there's more to it than just ticking off boxes on a list.

According to dictionary.com, a "rule" is "An authoritative, prescribed direction for conduct." The phrase "Unofficial rule" is therefore oxymoronical. It also undermines the rule that says that invasions are legal, because it gives the moderators the chance to determine *which* invasions are legal, and *which* are *not*. With no official rules, it is still left to the arbitrary opinion of the moderators which invasions are legal.There you go again with the dictionary. I applaud you for your ability to research common words, but again it serves no purpose here. "Unofficial rule" in this case means to me that the moderators do not have a clear definition of what distinguishes all "invasion" from "griefing." Therefore the moderators must observe the actions of the participants and judge for themselves what criteria those actions meet. As has been repeatedly mentioned, this is not so easy to do. The criteria have not been adequately defined making their jobs harder and your life considerably less simple. You may think you have the solution to this problem, but it's up to them to decide. If nothing else, I can promise you they are paying attention.

It also means that the entire exercise of appealing to nationstates players when constructing the handbook is a complete waste and a fraud. If none of the players’ contributions actually help to construct the rules of the game, then the entire 16 pages of player contributions is an exercise in futility. The moderators ought to have considered the experience of players and used those experiences to create a fairer and more complete conception of the rules of the game.

That is specifically why I want a review of how the "rules" are currently being enforced and un-enforced.And again, my heart bleeds for you. Your case is further undermined by suggesting the moderators are corrupt or at least inept, and that you're being unfairly treated. You and every other malcontent who feels they ought to be able to do as they please.

The moderators are human. Grant them that small consideration, please. They're going to make mistakes and they're not going to be able to please everyone. When they make them, they're usually pretty quick to admit it and reverse their rulings. However, by and large the majority of players on Nationstates find it a simple matter to avoid receiving any official warnings. A lot of people are able to play the game to their heart's content without ever running into rules violations.

I wrote a lengthy piece detailing what constitutes unacceptable material on the forums, outlining such things as sexual references, violence and language. I specifically included my hope that the moderators would rule on the content, make suggestions for changes and put up the final result as clear, definitive rules on what can get people in trouble. It never happened. Some moderators posted their support of the guidelines, but never gave them an official endorsement. The reason is because the topic matter is so difficult that they can't. There are always exceptions, and they decided to leave it as a list of helpful suggestions without tying themselves in to enforcing or not enforcing. Ultimately, the judgments must remain a case-by-case basis.

I'm not bitter about that. Do you know why? Because it's their right, and it's their job to make such decisions. By not officially endorsing my guidelines, they avoid shooting themselves in the foot by embracing restrictions that will ultimately hurt the game. They must maintain some leeway in their actions so they can apply the rules appropriately rather than uniformly.

It has been pointed out to me that the length and breadth of your comments lie in regard to invasions. This is a miniscule aspect of the game. It is a part of it, and I acknowledge your right (however gudgingly) that you're allowed to participate in it. I do not condone starting a witch hunt over something that a tiny fraction of the NS population willingly get involved in.

Standard Disclaimer: I am not a Moderator. Be thankful for small mercies.

Let me simplify this for you.

Max has stated that invasions are a viable part of the game, like it or not.

Max has also chosen moderators to well, moderate the game as they see fit, within the guidelines he's given them.

What you think may or may not be 'appropriate' or ought to be 'reviewed' is all fine and well, and as with anyone's opinion on here, you're more than free to give voice them. However - when it all comes down to it you have no right to dictate how this game gets run.

This is not your game. You do not pay anything to the creator to use it. Rules and guidelines have been set forth, many of which, as new dynamics to the game (such as invasions) have developed. You invaders have caused your own problems here by making a choice to play the game in such a way as frustrates and irritates a whole load of other people, and you now seem upset that things don't always go exactly your way. To put it bluntly: tough.

You don't have to like how the mods handle things, but you do need to accept that they are the authority here. You may think you know the whole story of what goes on behind the scenes, but I'll wager none of us do who aren't on the moderation team. Until you do know the whole story, perhaps you might want to step back a bit from the 'I am the authority on moderator sins'. Such crusades haven't gone much of anywhere in the past, and I don't see them doing much different in the forseeable future.

You've got opinions and suggestions. Great. You've laid 'em out. I'm sure if they see fit the mods with use what they can of it and toss what they can't. Regardless, it's their choice, and that's just how it is. In the meantime, I'd respectfully suggest doing what you can to encourage invaders to play smart, stick to what guidelines have been proven to be more consistent, and to ask questions here for clarification.

And please, do not come into the #nationstates IRC channel for the sole purpose of stirring things up and insulting people. You're not going to make any friends that way. As Sirocco told you in there as well, if you need to speak to the moderators, there is #themodcave that is set up for such discussion. Harassing them, or anyone else in #nationstates and being confrontational with everyone is not something we like to encourage.


ps: I hardly think that 'bullshit' is a flame. Grow some skin, and move on.

Why exactly should defenders be held to the same rules, when its their own region that's at risk of being taken? They are the natives, the people are dwell in that region, rather than the invaders, who come in and try to take a region that they probably don't even understand, away from the defenders, most of whom have been there for at least a decent amount of time.
Okay, there's some confusion of terminology, here.

"Invader" refers to any nation that enters a region that it doesn't normally reside in for the purpose of endorsing someone for the position of Delegate. "Invader" may also be used to describe a Delegate (native or non-native) who is supported by Invader nations (a.k.a. non-native nations).

"Defender" has no officially-recognized definition under NationStates rules, but generally refers to an invader who enters a region that it doesn't normally reside in for the purpose of endorsing someone for Delegate to resist an invasion attempt of the same region by someone else. The ADN are called "Defenders" and the DEN are called "Invaders", but as far as NationStates rules are concerned, both are Invaders. "Defender" does NOT refer to natives of the region being invaded. "Native" is used to describe nations who normally reside in the region being invaded.

You and Cogitation make the rest of us jump through mental gymnastics to insist to us that founders can't be reset, ever. But then, in three invasions of regions you revive the founders, and all three moments before the invasion is about to win!? Hmmm, amazing how that works. Do you admit there's at least an inconsistency here?
Resurrecting a dead Founder is not the same thing as changing the Founder of a region.

Some players request that a new nation be appointed Founder of a region because the previous Founder is dead. We do not appoint a new Founder unless the circumstances are exceptional, somehow. On the other hand, the player who owned the old Founder nation might request that the Founder be resurrected. This is perfectly fine and is much more common. The fact that the request is made during an invasion of the region is NOT grounds to deny a resurrection request.

Let me reiterate this:
Appointment request = Asking that the Founder of the region be changed to a different nation OR asking that a Founder be assigned to the region if the region has no Founder at all (dead or otherwise). This is done only under exceptional circumstances.

Resurrection request = Asking that a dead nation be reactiviated and made available for login by the owner. This is done only if the nation was not deleted by a Moderator for rulebreaking.

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

sorry cog i'm a little lost still i know that mass ejection of natives by "invaiders" is not allowed but are "defenders" allowed to eject all invaiders?

sorry cog i'm a little lost still i know that mass ejection of natives by "invaiders" is not allowed but are "defenders" allowed to eject all invaiders?
Non-natives may be ejected at will and without restriction. Remember that so-called "Defenders" are not natives of the region. "Defenders" come from outside the region to help natives, but they are not themselves natives. "Invaders" may eject all "Defenders". "Defenders" may eject all "Invaders". "Invaders" and "Defenders" are all non-native.

Natives... may not be mass-ejected by Invader Delegates*... and must be unbanned.

* Internally-Elected Delegates also cannot mass-eject natives, but the tolerance is higher for them.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Natives... may not be mass-ejected by Invader Delegates*... and must be unbanned.

* Internally-Elected Delegates also cannot mass-eject natives, but the tolerance is higher for them.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation


What would be the difference. What if the Internally elected delegate was a long inplanted spy of a raider (or defender) region, and takes over the influence of the region. How would you determine the difference? Shouldn't there be some equality? Or something that has all these rules written down for "all" can see clearly?

What would be the difference. What if the Internally elected delegate was a long inplanted spy of a raider (or defender) region, and takes over the influence of the region. How would you determine the difference? Shouldn't there be some equality? Or something that has all these rules written down for "all" can see clearly?

I dare say the 'equality' would be knocking off all this 'barging in and pushing people around just because you can' bs that invading is to begin with, thus elminating all the problems. But hey - not a viable solution, given it has become a valid, if annoying, aspect of the game.

It seems Cog has laid it out pretty clearly, there. Neither is to mass-eject natives. As for rules, I believe current guidelines and such have already been linked and referenced. Things like what you just laid out are a big reason why the mods are on record as stating there can't be a big all-inclusive list of 'this is exactly how things will always be dealt with'. All too often it has to be dealt with case by case, because very few situations are exactly alike.

If you were not a mod, you would be reported for flaming this conversation.

Be my guest.

salusa@nationstates.net
admin@nationstates.net

I dare say the 'equality' would be knocking off all this 'barging in and pushing people around just because you can' bs that invading is to begin with, thus elminating all the problems. But hey - not a viable solution, given it has become a valid, if annoying, aspect of the game.

Barging in pushing people around? What we do is go in, make a little chaos, than leave. And what do you mean by not a viable solution?

It seems Cog has laid it out pretty clearly, there. Neither is to mass-eject natives. As for rules, I believe current guidelines and such have already been linked and referenced. Things like what you just laid out are a big reason why the mods are on record as stating there can't be a big all-inclusive list of 'this is exactly how things will always be dealt with'. All too often it has to be dealt with case by case, because very few situations are exactly alike.

Yes, Cog and the rest of the mod team have been doing a good job on what they currently think are the right rules. I thank them for that. The "current" rules are linked in this thread, and I have read them both throughly. Then I'm going to compile a post, and make a thread, and see if I got the "right idea" on how the mods see raiding/defending. If I'm right on, I ask them to stiky it or move it to another forum so it can be "clearly" seen by all to make sure we don't have another one of these.

Case by case is also the problem I don't agree with. Yes it should be done case by case, but to what degree do case by case cases get leeway from the rules?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dred Pirate Roberts
If you were not a mod, you would be reported for flaming this conversation.



Be my guest.

salusa@nationstates.net
admin@nationstates.net

I ensure you it has been done, or if not, will be done in the near future.

Barging in pushing people around? What we do is go in, make a little chaos, than leave.
Speaking unofficially, I think some people would argue that "going in, making a little chaos, and then leaving" is the exact same thing as "barging in and pushing people around". Speaking unofficially, I agree.

And what do you mean by not a viable solution?
"Dread Lady Nathicana" is in favor of making all invasions illegal (if I understand her correctly; correct me if I am wrong). However, this is not a viable solution because the Admins have declared that invasions are to be legal (at least in some limited form); Moderators cannot overrule Admins.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
Founder and Delegate of The Realm of Ambrosia

Cog: You summed it up nicely. I do not see the appeal of playing a game purely at the expense of other people's fun.

How many complaints and problems do we continue to see that have to do with invasion and the invader players every day? Look at this current thread, for an example.

How many regions who have been contentedly playing the game, enjoying themselves, only to have their region thrown into chaos when some invader group decides to take it upon themselves to burst in and wreak havok? Time and again we seem complains from folks on this, and I don't blame them.

I realize that some of you enjoy this whole invasion thing, but I guess I just see it as a juvenile fixation on getting your rawr on to prove whatever point you feel you need to in pushing other folks around. Ultra-competitiveness? Needing to feel superior to others? An innate need to be top dog? What is it?

If I remember correctly, this whole 'invasion' thing was not something that was set up in the game initially. It was something that developed due to players forcing the issue and Max & the Mods having to make a decision on whether or not to continue to allow it. I -do- remember clearly just how loud the wails of protest have always been from those insisting this is why they play the game when the question of banning the practice has been mentioned by anyone else. After all, we still hear those cries today.

Let me reiterate my previous pertinent point, since you seem to have missed it:

Whether or not you happen to agree is beside the point entirely. This isn't your game. As illustrated, this game was not set up to support invasions initially. They have already bent to your desires in continuing to allow it. Case by case is often the only viable means of coming to a decision as very few cases are exactly the same. The mods have the final say on things, unless the admins see something they disagree with - which doesn't often happen, as they all seem to communicate rather well and be on the same page. If you don't like it and cannot abide it, you are free to leave.

Also - the word I think you were reaching for in that last bit was 'assure'. Best of luck making peace with the current situation, and getting back to enjoying gameplay.

I do see your point to some extent, but it could go both ways. Its not "your" game either. Its everyones. RP'rs, Invaders, Defenders, and even just the people that answer issues. Therefore it should be presented to all that equality should matter. In most accounts. I'm not saying all cases should be treated the same, but on a case by case I think the guidlines should be enforced (not to bring that up again).

I agree with the bullying aspect of your post, as in the invaders go in and 'push' nations around then leave. But there are regions, example mine, that go into inactive regions, liven the place up create a government and start recruiting. Empire Building I think we call it, there isn't anything wrong with this I feel, we even have had support from Natives in the past. You have to allow this sort of 'invasion' even if other regions take advantage of it.

I do see your point to some extent, but it could go both ways. Its not "your" game either. Its everyones. RP'rs, Invaders, Defenders, and even just the people that answer issues. Therefore it should be presented to all that equality should matter. In most accounts. I'm not saying all cases should be treated the same, but on a case by case I think the guidlines should be enforced (not to bring that up again).

Ah, but you see, I'm not the one sitting here trying to tell you that MY version of play is how it all ought to go. If that were the case, your argument might hold some water. It's Max's game. Plain and simple. We're all here due to him allowing it, and having the damnably good nature to keep it going when he didn't have to. Equality has nothing whatsoever to do with it, especially since we're all essentially sponging off the benefits and offering him nothing back in return for it. I've heard he's paid thousands out of pocket just to keep the game running before moving it over to Jolt. I'd think the least we could do is not be utter ungrateful bitches about every piddly little detail of the game that may or may not 'meet up' with our approval on account, neh?

As I've said before in other posts, it's like going into someone elses web pages and then telling them how they ought to be running them. It's just damn rude.

[EDIT]Mr Zombie: Well, if the natives are welcoming you, then it really isn't much of an 'invasion' then, is it? No one's pushing to make invasions illegal, so no need to worry about your 'Empire building'. Max is on record saying it's a part of the game now in one or more of the MaxChat deals.

I do see your point to some extent, but it could go both ways. Its not "your" game either. Its everyones. RP'rs, Invaders, Defenders, and even just the people that answer issues. Therefore it should be presented to all that equality should matter. In most accounts. I'm not saying all cases should be treated the same, but on a case by case I think the guidlines should be enforced (not to bring that up again).
In addition to what Dread Lady Nathicana said, I will also add the following:

(Again note that I am speaking unofficially....)

Answering issues is a designed part of the game and does not disrupt other players. Roleplaying was made up by players, but it does not disrupt other players (unless you flame, spam, or something, and there are rules against that). Voting on UN resolutions does disrupt other players very slightly if the resolution passes, but that is how the United Nations was originally designed and everyone is told up front how it operates before they join.

Region invasions, on the other hand, are both a player-invented activity and very disruptive in nature.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
Founder and Delegate of The Realm of Ambrosia

when it all comes down to it you have no right to dictate how this game gets run.

You have no right to *dictate* to the rest of us that we have to just settle for the status quo. Like you said, I'm free to my opinion and to express it. And according to Salusa, I'm entitled to expect that the mods will be held to account. It seems to me like you might be trying to disuade me from submitting this to the mods supervisors, and if so, just so you know, the point is now moot.

I again want to point out that the focus of this conversation has been significantly shifted from the specific problems and suggestions mentioned and onto specific individuals and other tangents. I hope that's not deliberate and I also hope that the conversation can return to the rules and the specific problems at hand. If you're not able to address these topics substantively, then I am perfectly willing to wait until I hear from Salusa (and I do await his response).

You have no right to *dictate* to the rest of us that we have to just settle for the status quo. Like you said, I'm free to my opinion and to express it. And according to Salusa, I'm entitled to expect that the mods will be held to account. It seems to me like you might be trying to disuade me from submitting this to the mods supervisors, and if so, just so you know, the point is now moot.

Dread Lady Nathicana was in no way, shape, or form dictating to the rest of you to settle for the status quo. She was merely telling you how it is. This site is owned by Max Barry, and controlled by the admins and moderators that have been appointed; therefore, they make the rules that the rest of the players need to follow. There's a difference between suggesting improvements for the game, and telling the moderators/admins what they need to do for the site. If you were a moderator of this site, and one of the players told you that how you are running the site is dumb, I'm sure that you wouldn't exactly appreciate it.

You have no right to *dictate* to the rest of us that we have to just settle for the status quo. Like you said, I'm free to my opinion and to express it. And according to Salusa, I'm entitled to expect that the mods will be held to account. It seems to me like you might be trying to disuade me from submitting this to the mods supervisors, and if so, just so you know, the point is now moot.

Again, I'm not dictating - if you don't have the right, it's only obvious that neither do I. And I'm not trying to dissuade you from voicing your opinion. I am however, trying to illustrate some of the faults in your reasoning, which is another thing entirely. If you have a problem accepting simple facts, I don't know what to tell you. As has so often been said of NationStates - this ain't no democracy.

You've got opinions and suggestions. Great. You've laid 'em out. I'm sure if they see fit the mods with use what they can of it and toss what they can't. Regardless, it's their choice, and that's just how it is. In the meantime, I'd respectfully suggest doing what you can to encourage invaders to play smart, stick to what guidelines have been proven to be more consistent, and to ask questions here for clarification.
I would suggest actually reading people's responses before coming up with defensive blather like this if you're truly trying to be convincing. It only weakens your position when you don't.

Dread Lady Nathicana was in no way, shape, or form dictating to the rest of you to settle for the status quo. She was merely telling you how it is. This site is owned by Max Barry, and controlled by the admins and moderators that have been appointed; therefore, they make the rules that the rest of the players need to follow. There's a difference between suggesting improvements for the game, and telling the moderators/admins what they need to do for the site. If you were a moderator of this site, and one of the players told you that how you are running the site is dumb, I'm sure that you wouldn't exactly appreciate it.


go back and read thread #51 carefully, and see if I made "dictations" or "suggestions"

If you have a problem accepting simple facts, I don't know what to tell you. As has so often been said of NationStates - this ain't no democracy.

Salusa points out in the technical forum that even the mods have to held to account. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=275323

I would suggest actually reading people's responses before coming up with defensive blather like this if you're truly trying to be convincing. It only weakens your position when you don't.

Tu quoque. How about addressing this topic substantively rather than skirt it off on so many tangents?

I've seen enough of your attitude both here and in IRC to have other opinions on that, thank you.

you don't need to respond, and I don't plan to respond to you anymore. I've sent this to the mod's supervisors, that's all I have left to say on this subject.

*Passes some green tea around the thread*

I think this is offensive to Nathicana and I think you owe her an apology.
:confused:
Nathi should apologize to herself?

Apparently they are different people ya, why else would they need to respond to comments each other makes? Or else they aren't different... hmmm...

Apparently they are different people ya, why else would they need to respond to comments each other makes? Or else they aren't different... hmmm...
I believe you misunderstand. There is no poster under solely the name "Nathicana" that has posted in this thread, you can check it yourself. What I believe Nathi was trying to do is quote another of her own posts at you, and then direct the remark that you assumed was directed at the quote at you. There does not appear to be a nation or forum account existing entitled only "Nathicana", assuming the search functions are to be believed.

The following is player opinion, not any sort of official ruling.

Salusa points out in the technical forum that even the mods have to held to account. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=275323
Just because we have to be held to account doesn't preclude the possiblity that both SalusaSecondus and [violet] quote often agree with us. If you want a recent example, have a look at this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=409135) within the last hour.

I think you have the impression that Salusa, and [violet], and ultimately Max Barry himself, will agree with you that the past two years of stewardship by current and former moderation staff was entirely a mistake, and that your opinions are necessarily correct. I personally find that result highly unlikely. You're welcome to make your appeals, but be ready to accept the answers even if they are entirely opposite of what you've requested.

Neo-Anarchists: You are correct! I shortened my name because dang, it just gets annoying having to type it all out sometimes. I mean honestly - this nation started off as a joke, after all, hence the ridiculous name. It's just been the most fun of mine to play, and turned out rather well in the end. In any case, it would appear DPR really doesn't read other people's posts very well, or he'd have easily been able to see it was myself I was requoting. ;)

Dred Pirate Roberts: How about you be a bit more honest in saying you're not going to respond again, rather than going back quietly to edit past posts to take more digs at folks? As to your charge of tangents, I think I've remained rather on course in this discussion. Not to mention, my statements seem to have been backed up by others who are in a better position to know what's what. Regardless, I think Fris has answered you quite well enough with his latest, even if it's voice as a player, not a mod. You now have a more knowledgeable response on some of the points I was trying to make.
You're welcome to make your appeals, but be ready to accept the answers even if they are entirely opposite of what you've requested.
To be precise.