NationStates Jolt Archive

Well the title says it all really, could you please define what constitutes 'a Native'? Is there a set amount of time that a nation needs to reside in a region before it can be classified as having 'gone native', or is merely its prescence in a region prior to a new delegate all that is required?

Just so that you know, HMS Nottingham, making the invaded region a forum once you've invaded doesn't make you natives. So don't start going on about it.

As you well know, we didn't 'invade' Palestine, unlike yourself of course.

Right, before this goes on, if this is about the " Palestine " events, I'd like to direct your attention to this thread here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=411551) and that it seems to have been locked pending a GM decision.

Well I was actually posing a more general question, as so far I have yet to see any definition of what actually constitutes a native. Therefore, how can you know if you are breaking NS rules with regard to natives if there is no clear definition of what a native actually is and when a nation is considered to be one.

This is something that has been bugging me for a while, as I'm more than a bit of a stickler for clear and concise rules I'm afraid. So lets see if we can keep this discussion restricted to the actual topic at hand, rather than veering onto specific instances where it may or amy not be an issue.

So lets see if we can keep this discussion restricted to the actual topic at hand, rather than veering onto specific instances where it may or amy not be an issue.That was kind of my point, as it was you who mentioned Palestine, :) Since I agree with you, that this should stay on its original topic.

Well I was actually posing a more general question, as so far I have yet to see any definition of what actually constitutes a native. Therefore, how can you know if you are breaking NS rules with regard to natives if there is no clear definition of what a native actually is and when a nation is considered to be one.

A "native" is a nation that resides in the region long-term, where the owner of that nation considers that region to be home.
I also believe that for someone to be considered a native, they must reside in a region before an invasion occurs. Moving into the region while the invasion takes place will not make you a native.

I've already covered this aaaggeesss ago. You need more Native endorsements than the last Delegate to be considered a Native. As there was no Delegate when we went in. One Native endorsing us would've been fine, unfortunately there weren't any Native UN nations. So we were in a pickle.

*Am not a Mod, so I am not completely sure about it.

In order to be a natie, you must be born in that location. If you ignorant people honestly think that natives are 'pre-invasion' population, then basically nobody outside of the persian area is a native of where they live.

In order to be a natie, you must be born in that location. If you ignorant people honestly think that natives are 'pre-invasion' population, then basically nobody outside of the persian area is a native of where they live.

Not necessarily. It gets complicated though, seeing as someone could enter a region for many different reasons. I don't think the moderators actually classify someone as a native/non-native until an actual invasion occurs. Then there's the question of whether they came with the invading forces, or the defending forces, that is, if they came in when the invasion occurs. I don't think there's an actual set definition for if someone is a native or not. It's really a case-by-case issue, after an invasion occurs.

In order to be a natie, you must be born in that location. If you ignorant people honestly think that natives are 'pre-invasion' population, then basically nobody outside of the persian area is a native of where they live.

a bit of friendly advice, dont go insulting people in the moderation forum, it never helps.
Plus they're talking about ingame natives not rl natives and so your other comments really dont make much sense either.

i'd think, if you need to ask if you're a native, you're not a native :p

In order to be a natie, you must be born in that location.

this way, only the pacifics would have natives...

I've already covered this aaaggeesss ago. You need more Native endorsements than the last Delegate to be considered a Native. As there was no Delegate when we went in. One Native endorsing us would've been fine, unfortunately there weren't any Native UN nations. So we were in a pickle.

i think you are confused with an internally elected delegate, this still would not make you a native.

also, you'd need more native endorsements than anyone in the region, not just the last delegate.

I've already covered this aaaggeesss ago. You need more Native endorsements than the last Delegate to be considered a Native. As there was no Delegate when we went in. One Native endorsing us would've been fine, unfortunately there weren't any Native UN nations. So we were in a pickle.

*Am not a Mod, so I am not completely sure about it.

Lets try to keep this on topic and not discuss specific instances shall we?

In essence, I am looking for a clearly defined definition of what a native is. There should be quantative factors that decide this, not qualative ones as otherwise every time someone gets booted out of a region by anyone other than the founder then they can cry 'I'm a native' and drag the mods into an argument that they probably shouldn't.

In essence how can you possibly know if you're breaking the NS rules with regards to booting out natives, if there is not quantative measure for what actually qualifies a nation as a native?

I would suggest a simple residency test. If a nation has been resident in a region for at least 75% of the time over a period of a month from it first entering a region, then it can be considered a 'native' of that region. You could go for longer time periods, or require a higher percentage of actual residency, but then all nations go on 'holidays', tours, diplomatic missions and so on from time-to-time.

David.

If I recall... a native is someone who has resided in a region for quite some time with the intent on staying there for both the immediate and indefinate future. Someone who can legitiamately call that reigion their "home"

An imperialistic colonizer therefore would not be considered a native, since they hold their allegences (sp?) with the imperial power, not the colony. The same applys for long term spies... but they shouldn't be caught.

I did have a relevant post somewhere... cant find it now... but I do list it on my version of a rule handbook (assesable thru sig)

Although... I am sure a mod will wish to correct me... I think this catches most cases

*NOTE* Ish not a mod */NOTE*

i think you are confused with an internally elected delegate, this still would not make you a native.

also, you'd need more native endorsements than anyone in the region, not just the last delegate.

Ah yes. Sorry.

Whether or not a delegate is "native" depends upon the number of native votes versus invader votes; if the majority are native votes, you're a native. [Moderator Edit - Cogitation] With apologies to Tsaraine, this paragraph is not correct. Please see my post below. [/modedit]

Whether or not a nation is native, however, is an almost entirely qualitative question, because it depends almost entirely upon intent. It is decided on a case-by-case basis because to set "hard and fast" rules for nativity would allow for all sorts of abuse, with people finding loopholes or ways around them.

I hope that answers your question.

~ Tsar the Mod.

Whether or not a delegate is "native" depends upon the number of native votes versus invader votes; if the majority are native votes, you're a native.* Means your an By-Natives-Elected Delegate. It does not make your account an actual native there, only the definition of your Delegacy. You can still be an " Invader " BUT have yet enough actual from-natives endorsements to allow you to be called a " native delegate ".

Sorry to butt into that Tsaraine, I was just worried there was still a small chance of confusion if people didn't read the second paragraph right ...

lol... the problem with situations like this is that the NS rules on invasions are vague and "maneuverable" to say the least. I doubt you'll get classified as natives, based on past experience.

EDIT: Komokom: Does that mean that someone, say me for the sake of argument, could enter a region, get endorsements from the natives and now because I'm a "native delegate" invite in the rest of my vast invader army who would then also be classed as natives because they came on the invite of a native delegate? Perhaps that's a bad example:

I enter a region with some "friends" from my invader org, become delegate (remember ALL of us are classed as natives as we entered the region legally, not as invaders, and we stayed in the region, talked to each other on the RMB etc discussed things...) then once I'm NATVIE delegate (remember that natives are allowed to endorse each other, so since my friends and I have been "recruited" we are merely supporting our prefered candidate ie me) I can invite my other "friends" in to support me. Of course, the mods would probably not agree with me even though Im technically right and so I wont tell anyone that they're from an invader org. Ever. Will anyone find out? No. Not unless I tell them.

Praetonia, while I do have a response for you, I'm not posting here for risk of pulling this off-topic. If you'd like me to give you this response, telegram " komokom " about it and I'll ditty it up for you in one or two telegrams and fire it off. Might I suggest if you want a game valid answer you should in fact be asking Tsaraine or better yet a Game Moderator, rather then I. Sufice to say at the moment that no, I don't think you'd be or your " friends " would be a native account / s because of both the circumstances of your origins, your stated intents and that you seem to have a vaguely flawed concept of nativity itself as I see it. But as I said, I doubt I'm the right person to ask about it.

Mind you, I think you've made a perfect example of why there maybe shouldn't be iron-clad rules, because people from one side or another will try to worm their way into loop-holes they might find or will try to devise to their own ends, ( shrug )

You misunderstand. I don't have any "friends", I don't intend to take over a region in this way and I'm not particularly bothered if you personally have an opinion on it. All I'm saying is that this is actually legal under the current rules, directing it at you because it was with refers to what you believe (and I more or less agree) the rules on natives are and this is a thread about current rules on natives, is it not?

I would definately, however, disagree that this is why we don't need ironclad rules. This is an example of what could happen under current rules. Vague rules allow basically anyone to be deleted for basically anything so long as they're classed as "invader" which not only wrong, but erratic and inconsistent.

You misunderstand. I don't have any "friends", I don't intend to take over a region in this way and I'm not particularly bothered if you personally have an opinion on it. All I'm saying is that this is actually legal under the current rules, directing it at you because it was with refers to what you believe (and I more or less agree) the rules on natives are and this is a thread about current rules on natives, is it not?1) I realise your not likely to go and do it, I was speaking just as hypothetically as you were.

2) I know your not bothered, because you asked me, didn't you, :p but I was bothered because I felt you'd directed a question at me that while I could answer as I saw it, it was not quite as on topic as I might think it should have been, and further more, I don't think I'm in any position to actually give a valid response when it really is something that should be answered by a moderator only ( the original question, I mean, not just your theoretical situation ).

* Which is what Tsar has done anyway, so this is kind of moot in regards to the original reason for this thread I'd have thought.

3) And again, I disagree that what we think are current rules on natives being similar too. Also, I still think that any information to be posted here in regards to actual " rules " of nativity should only be posted by Moderators, and I would think GM or any Staff senior to GM position. This is because of the reasons Tsaraine has given in reegards to the " case by case " nature. The only reason I posted was because I was seeking to clarify a small part of what Tsaraine said both for other readers and myself.

As for the second half of your post, I'll only say that its not always " Invaders " who get deat'd at all, its actually grieffers ... and that that entire concept seems to be your real motivation for posting here, not, nativity questions.

EDIT : I'm going to be waiting for a moderator response before I'm posting again, in fact.

*sigh* Why do people always make these stupidly overblown posts telling me what I do and don't think just because I say something they disagree with? Whatever... I dont usually post on moderation anyway for precisely that reason. Bye.

So then, how do you know if you're a native or not? Obviously technically speaking there is no such thing as a native in a region that still has a founder, as ultimately the founder decides who stays and who goes in a region, even an 'invading' UN delegate.

The reason that I ask is that if its all based on 'intent', well that is just something that can never be proved really isn't it? On that rationale I could found multiple nations, plonk them in regions I like the look of and then whenever I get booted out by anyone that isn't a founder, or a delegate doesn't give me the password complain to the mods and get them deleted.

I've already covered this aaaggeesss ago. You need more Native endorsements than the last Delegate to be considered a Native. As there was no Delegate when we went in. One Native endorsing us would've been fine, unfortunately there weren't any Native UN nations. So we were in a pickle.

*Am not a Mod, so I am not completely sure about it.i think you are confused with an internally elected delegate, this still would not make you a native.

also, you'd need more native endorsements than anyone in the region, not just the last delegate. Ah yes. Sorry.Yes, Crazy Girl has it right.

You need more native endorsements than any other Delegate to be considered an Internally-Elected Delegate. This means that you can eject-and-ban natives, but this does not confer native protections on you. You can be Internally-Elected and still be non-native.

In order to be a natie, you must be born in that location. If you ignorant people honestly think that natives are 'pre-invasion' population, then basically nobody outside of the persian area is a native of where they live.
I believe that you are confusing natives of real-life places with "native nations" in NationStates. All nations are born in the feeder regions: The Pacific, The North Pacific, The West Pacific, and so on.

I also advise you NOT to go around insulting people.

I don't think there's an actual set definition for if someone is a native or not.
Correct. If a Moderator thinks that you're there as a bona fide honest resident, then you're native. If a Moderator thinks that you came in to overthrow the Delegate, then you're non-native.

Lets try to keep this on topic and not discuss specific instances shall we?

In essence, I am looking for a clearly defined definition of what a native is. There should be quantative factors that decide this, not qualative ones as otherwise every time someone gets booted out of a region by anyone other than the founder then they can cry 'I'm a native' and drag the mods into an argument that they probably shouldn't.

In essence how can you possibly know if you're breaking the NS rules with regards to booting out natives, if there is not quantative measure for what actually qualifies a nation as a native?

I would suggest a simple residency test. If a nation has been resident in a region for at least 75% of the time over a period of a month from it first entering a region, then it can be considered a 'native' of that region. You could go for longer time periods, or require a higher percentage of actual residency, but then all nations go on 'holidays', tours, diplomatic missions and so on from time-to-time.
This will be abused by invaders to try to get themselves to qualify as natives. For example, an invasion force will slowly trickle in over the course of two months (or however long it takes) to pass the residency test and then suddenly overthrow the current residents and permanently ban them from their own region. This is why a qualitative test is required.

If I recall... a native is someone who has resided in a region for quite some time with the intent on staying there for both the immediate and indefinate future. Someone who can legitiamately call that reigion their "home"

An imperialistic colonizer therefore would not be considered a native, since they hold their allegences (sp?) with the imperial power, not the colony. The same applys for long term spies... but they shouldn't be caught.

I did have a relevant post somewhere... cant find it now... but I do list it on my version of a rule handbook (assesable thru sig)

Although... I am sure a mod will wish to correct me... I think this catches most casesExactly correct.

Whether or not a delegate is "native" depends upon the number of native votes versus invader votes; if the majority are native votes, you're a native. With apologies to my associate, Tsaraine, this is not correct. Crazy Girl, above, has it correct.

So then, how do you know if you're a native or not? Obviously technically speaking there is no such thing as a native in a region that still has a founder, as ultimately the founder decides who stays and who goes in a region, even an 'invading' UN delegate.
Invasion rules still apply in regions with active Founders. It's just that an active Founder can take care of business without bothering the Moderators, if so desired, but a griefing compolaint can still be filed and an invader can still be deleted for mass-ejecting natives.

The reason that I ask is that if its all based on 'intent', well that is just something that can never be proved really isn't it? On that rationale I could found multiple nations, plonk them in regions I like the look of and then whenever I get booted out by anyone that isn't a founder, or a delegate doesn't give me the password complain to the mods and get them deleted.
In the hypothetical you describe, it's possible that a Moderator would see you history of invasion activity and rule that all of your puppets are spies and therefore non-native.

...and yes, intent is something that can never really be proven. Thus, a judgment call by a Moderator is necessary.

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

I rise in moral and substantive agreement with the thread starter. This definition is far too critical to leave un-defined for such a long period of time. The absence of such a critical definition makes unpredictable an unequivocally legal part of the game (invasions). This unpredictability is unacceptable to me, and it is my understanding that this unpredictability is also unacceptable to senior NS moderators such as Salusa.

Whether or not a delegate is "native" depends upon the number of native votes versus invader votes; if the majority are native votes, you're a native. [Moderator Edit - Cogitation] With apologies to Tsaraine, this paragraph is not correct. Please see my post below. [/modedit]

Whether or not a nation is native, however, is an almost entirely qualitative question, because it depends almost entirely upon intent. It is decided on a case-by-case basis because to set "hard and fast" rules for nativity would allow for all sorts of abuse, with people finding loopholes or ways around them.

I hope that answers your question.

~ Tsar the Mod.

This does answer the question, but the answer is wholly unacceptable to me. I am aware of Cogitation's response, but I wish to explain why this answer is unacceptable. If every case of nativity has to go through the mods, this gives the mods way too much influence and authority, especially since the mods can legally play nationstates via other puppets. This means that the mods have the power to rule in their own judgement and / or cases in which they are an interested party. That seems neither fair nor a proper use of their authority. Furthermore, without a defined code of rules, requiring the moderator's use their discretion in every case opens the door to the possibility of inconsistent application of the rules.

Correct. If a Moderator thinks that you're there as a bona fide honest resident, then you're native. If a Moderator thinks that you came in to overthrow the Delegate, then you're non-native.

This is the real crux of it. The definition resides solely with the moderators, and there is no real way of appealing decisions other than going to Max or Salusa and creating hard feelings along the way. In a philosophical, rhetorical way of thinking about it, there's got to be (and probably is) a better way about knowing ahead of time how a moderator is going to rule.

This problem is not going away unless action is taken to resolve this question and other similar questions that are needlessly vague and unanswered (i.e. the official definition of "spam"). Keeping these questions unanswered means that the status quo of inconsistent rulings and unacceptable amount of unpredictability in the invasion game play continue.

As a result, I renew my request for the following:

* A review of the present status of the rules, which includes input from players

* Clear definitions of recurring loopholes like native status and spamming

* A clearly defined structure that more effectively holds the moderators accountable for their actions and demands consistent rulings, that does not necessitate bringing concerns directly to Max or Salusa


Dred Pirate Roberts

This does answer the question, but the answer is wholly unacceptable to me. I am aware of Cogitation's response, but I wish to explain why this answer is unacceptable. If every case of nativity has to go through the mods, this gives the mods way too much influence and authority, especially since the mods can legally play nationstates via other puppets. This means that the mods have the power to rule in their own judgement and / or cases in which they are an interested party. That seems neither fair nor a proper use of their authority.
If a case directly involves a Moderator, then that Moderator will usually ask to be excused from judging it and will pass it off to a Moderator who isn't involved.

This is the real crux of it. The definition resides solely with the moderators, and there is no real way of appealing decisions other than going to Max or Salusa and creating hard feelings along the way. In a philosophical, rhetorical way of thinking about it, there's got to be (and probably is) a better way about knowing ahead of time how a moderator is going to rule.
Unfortunately, invaders will attempt to use any hard set of rules to get themselves declared native when their intentions in the region are actually hostile. "Ha, ha! We're natives now, so you can't get rid of us! :p " No... if you don't honestly call that region home, then you are not a native.

I can't think of a way to hard-quantify it, at least not without a very large amount of reprogramming to NationStates (which is not a practical option).

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Does the "gut reaction" work Cog? IE, if you have to ask if you are a mod (or you have any doubt if you qualifty) assume you aren't?

Unfortunately, invaders will attempt to use any hard set of rules to get themselves declared native when their intentions in the region are actually hostile. "Ha, ha! We're natives now, so you can't get rid of us! :p " No... if you don't honestly call that region home, then you are not a native.--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

That's also part of the crux of it. Basically what you just said is that a clear definition would require there to be uniformity and predictability in invasions. Why would that be such a bad thing?

It is unequivocally true that invasion is an officially legal part of the game. Adding this layer of unpredictability to invasions make the invasion gameplay less than legal since it is under the constant supervision and scrutiny of the moderators. Like I said recently, the constant supervision and scrutiny gives the moderators the final authority determine which invasions are and are not legal, instead of (ideally) letting the players decide whether or not to follow the (theoretical) invasion rules. The fact that the moderators are so heavily involved sets up the *possibility* of conflicts of interests and the possibility of inconsistent and inequitable rulings.

In other words, if there are such a thing as an "illegal" invasion, then why not define those at the same time as when you define a "legal" invasion?

I never intend to ask a moderator for clarification for one of my invasion. As I mentioned to Salusa, there is a *perception* popular with invaders that the moderators not only *favor* defenders but also *participate* with defenders. Im not talking about whether or not this may in fact be true, I'm talking only about the *perception*. Why would invaders share their invasion plans with moderators, whom they perceive to be in bed with defenders? It makes no rational sense for the invaders to do this assuming the invaders actually want their invasion to succeed.

I think this perception comes from the fact that moderators are allowed to play the game. I don't like that and I am not in favor of that. IMO, it creates an appearance of impropriety that the moderators can't shake unless they eschew playing the game. Either you're a moderator or a player, not both.

I don't need to try too hard to come up with instances of either, and my experiences and those of the thread starter ought to be sufficient to persuade you that there is a problem with the status quo. if those exs. weren't sufficient, then I refer back to the Francos Spain affair in December 2003 when Francos was mysteriously deleted. That situation was mishandled from the beginning and a lot of people got caught up in the crosshairs.

Look... I dont really know what the problem here is anymore... I DO notice you think invasions are "less than legal." if you set out to invade someone, gloat a bit and leave, you wont have any problem. If you go out to invade someone and intentionally grief them... well then dont be suprised if the invasion is illegal.

I do know the mods play the game. Most of them are in rather large regions, the likes of which my military would not be able to touch. But as Cog has said, and I've seen this happen before, if a mod is in fact biased, they will tag off to one that is not. I have seen this happen, so I know that it will happen should the problem arise again.

Now, are the moderators human? Yes.
Are the overworked? Absolutely.
Are they paid? I dont belive so.

Why would you reccomend someone do work for free unless they get something from it? They get to play, the same as you, and their small time of amusement is payment for the hours of headaches they get from various moderation complaints. Why not lighten their load a smidge?

*NOTE* Ish not a mod */NOTE*

What about multi-region nativity? For example, there are several 'Empires' out there, GB&I's included whereby it can easily be argued that all of the nations that reside anywhere within said empire are 'natives' of all of the regions of that empire. This is particularly true of the UN Nations of that empire, as they are likely to roam around patrolling, taking turns to be delegates or whatever.

You also have the issue of 'emigration', whereby after a region has been secured, nations from the home region leave to reside permanently in the newly aquired region. Surely such nations can be considered 'native' in the new region that they have moved to?

What about multi-region nativity?
I think I can safely speak to that, despite not being a game mod.

Multi-regional allegiance are either roleplay or gameplay, and as such can't be recognized by the game. The only region that could possibly count would be the one you physically reside in. You could consider yourself a member of several others, but officially "there can be only one".

What about multi-region nativity? For example, there are several 'Empires' out there, GB&I's included whereby it can easily be argued that all of the nations that reside anywhere within said empire are 'natives' of all of the regions of that empire. This is particularly true of the UN Nations of that empire, as they are likely to roam around patrolling, taking turns to be delegates or whatever.

Nativity is a very complicated word, seeing as everything is determined case by case, in the event of a player having a question. From what I understand, one nation can only be native to one region. I do understand that all of the nations is specific alliances travel around to several regions that belong to them, which would mean that they aren't 'natives' of those regions.

I'll try and create an example of it.
Nation A goes to Region A for a few days, and then goes to Region B for a few days as well. Nation A isn't a native of Region B despite both regions being part of the same alliance. It's all a matter of how long Nation A resides in Region B. If they stay within the region long enough, and have the intentions of making Region B their home (which I understand can be hard to determine), then Region B would then become their native region. Once intentions are made of Nation A staying in Region B, the nativity of the previous region would no longer exist, and would become Region B.

You also have the issue of 'emigration', whereby after a region has been secured, nations from the home region leave to reside permanently in the newly aquired region. Surely such nations can be considered 'native' in the new region that they have moved to?

Nations that are involved in invading a foreign region are not considered natives, at the time, obviously because they didn't reside in the nation before the actual invasion. The question as to if a nation can become a native of the region is another tricky thing to explain (And this is from what I understand; I'd very much appreciate it if a mod could correct me if I make a mistake on the issue). If the invading nation decides to stick around in the region for the long term, and works with the natives of the region, with the knowledge that it has decided to make the new region its permanent home, I don't understand why it couldn't be a native.

It's all up to whether the original natives accept the invasion or not. If the invasion isn't accepted, and there are repeated attempts to take the region back, I personally don't think that the originally invading nation could become a native (by continuing to support the invaders in quelling revolts, and denying the help of their own regionmates), unless it chooses to support the defenders trying to restore the region to its leader, before the invasion.

Like I said before, it's determined case by case, and each situation is unique in its own.

Excuse me, Euroslavia. I believe you are being rude and disrespectful to HMS Nottingham and I don't like it. I don't believe you addressed his question and as you are not a moderator, I don't like how you pretend as if your opinions are authoritative. He and I are well aware of the status quo. We are commenting on how and why the status quo is unsatisfactory.

I mentioned in this another post. It is my understanding that Salusa Secondus, a senior moderator, agrees with me that the status quo is unacceptability unpredictable. I also think that the silence from other moderators might be taken as tacit agreement. It is my understanding that as we speak the status quo is under review for the very reasons that have been brought up. It is my understanding that Salusa Secondus intends to present "sometime soon" a new conception of invasion rules. For the record, I will hold him to that, but I believe that, if that happens, that contains the possibility for a major improvement in the invasion gameplay and I applaud these efforts.

Excuse me, Euroslavia. I believe you are being rude and disrespectful to HMS Nottingham and I don't like it. I don't believe you addressed his question and as you are not a moderator, I don't like how you pretend as if your opinions are authoritative. He and I are well aware of the status quo. We are commenting on how and why the status quo is unsatisfactory.

I mentioned in this another post. It is my understanding that Salusa Secondus, a senior moderator, agrees with me that the status quo is unacceptability unpredictable. I also think that the silence from other moderators might be taken as tacit agreement. It is my understanding that as we speak the status quo is under review for the very reasons that have been brought up. It is my understanding that Salusa Secondus intends to present "sometime soon" a new conception of invasion rules. For the record, I will hold him to that, but I believe that, if that happens, that contains the possibility for a major improvement in the invasion gameplay and I applaud these efforts.

To clarify:

Yes, we're reviewing the invasion rules. This doesn't mean that change will result, just that we are reviewing them thorougly. For that matter, should we decide that the status quo is better than the alternatives, no changes will be made or announced. All I ever said was that we were reviewing it.

Great news Salusa! Thanks for finally acknowledging that there is a problem with the rules (why else would you agree to conduct a review of the rules if there were no problems with them?). This is a big step forward.

You know, I really don't demand there be a reform to the rules (although I am strongly in favor of it if you do). I only insist that I am given a fair chance to decide for myself if the invasions gameplay were to become predictable (or remain unpredictable) and to determine for myself whether or not I wish to continue playing this game. If you decide that the rules can't be changed for whatever reason, fine, just let us know so that we can decide whether or not we wish to continue playing this game.

I really don't understand why it might be necessary to re-code the game in order define these things like native status and/or spamming. For native status, let regions decide it for themselves. Or simply say after x days in a region, no matter who you are or why you're there, you're a native / founder whatever.

The mods want to distinguish invaders from non-invader players in the game. I notice that this line of thinking is leading to problems. First, I suspect that some mods must feel that it is necessary to classify "non-invading residents," "invaders," "invader-puppets" and so forth. If you have to classify and if you have to be able to determine the classifications easily, then it might be necessary for new code that easily determines these classifications. But this thinking is wholly problematic. First, if invasion is legal, why is it at all appropriate to classify invaders? Isn't that like treating them in a different way from all other nations in the game? if you treated every nation resident in a region like every other nation in the region, then you entirely avoid the need for making these classifications. If you created and enforced this level playing field, coding for invasion classifications become utterly unnecessary.Second, wouldn't the classification of invaders diminish the invasion gameplay? Third, wouldn't the classification of invaders represent the ultimate intrusion of the moderators into a supposedly legal aspect of the game, and give moderators tremendous advantages assuming they doubled via other puppets as defenders? Fourth, wouldn't the moderators be wasting their time (and ours) coding when simpler solutions to this issue might exist?

Another related problem that has never been adequately considered or addressed: when a defender delegate "defends" a region and kicks out "invader" nations who have resided in a region for a certain, considerable amount of time, isn't that griefing? Why not? Shouldn't it be? isn't the same result achieved if the defender kicks out the point "invader"? How does the defender know that the "invader" is an "invader" and not a native rival?

For spamming, just say that x lines of text constitutes spam. Or design the post feature so that it prevents people from making really long posts (done effectively to stop multiple posts...). And you don't need to create new code to create an oversight body of the moderators, that would be a political not a structural reform.

Hey, I've volunteered to be of any assistance in the process, let me know how I might help!

Dred Pirate Roberts

For spamming, just say that x lines of text constitutes spam. Or prevent people from making really long posts.

Hey, I've volunteered to be of any assistance in the process, let me know how I might help!

2 quick things...

First, that "long post is a spam" comment... no dice. Some regions (mine included) have RP's on the RMB sometimes... or long political doccuments/speaches. Why should they be constituted as spam?

Second... if you want to help so much... why not refrain from posting on the issue for a while? Maybe let Salusa do some thinking? Maybe HMS Nottingham can request a lock until Salusa decides if there will be a rule-change?

*NOTE* Ish not a mod */NOTE*

First, if invasion is legal, why is it at all appropriate to classify invaders? Isn't that like treating them in a different way from all other nations in the game? if you treated every nation resident in a region like every other nation in the region, then you entirely avoid the need for making these classifications. If you created and enforced this level playing field, coding for invasion classifications become utterly unnecessary.Here, I will refer to the FAQ.Can I invade other people's regions?

Yes. The practice of "region crashing," where a group of nations all move to a region with the aim of seizing the UN Delegate position, is part of the game. Certain groups within NationStates are particularly adroit at this, and can attack very quickly.

Once I've taken over a region, can I eject everyone else?

No. Region crashing by itself is a legitimate tactic to seize power, but ejecting large numbers of nations is griefing. It can be a fine line between region crashing and griefing. Players who enjoy launching invasions should take care to stay on the right side.Invading is legal. However, throwing out everyone who used to be in the region and keeping them out is not legal. This is why a distinction is necessary; those who used to be in the region must be allowed to stay there if they so choose. This is why we classify nations. Without the classification, naions could be legally thrown out of their home region and unable to return.

We can't (easily) automate this classification because invaders will attempt to subvert this automation in such a way that they get classified as natives when they really shouldn't.

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

Cogitation,

I'm really glad that you and I have been able to have this discussion because we see this game in such radically different ways and this discussion has really highlighted those areas in which we really do fundamentally disagree. That disagreement i think is healthy between mature people, so I just want to thank you for the opportunity to discuss this maturely.

On your specific point, I believe that I squarely addressed this so I'll just crystalize the point. As you acknowledge, there is in current use a classification system to distinguish invaders and other players (which is, imo ultimately an erroneous distinction). What is it's basis? If invasion is a legal part of the game, why invent some sort of classification that sets them apart from other players?

I can't understand how people might find role playing or issues to be fun. But they do, and I can sort of respect it even though I disagree with it. It's not fun for me to role play so I invade. It's not fun for me to argue with the moderation staff after every invasion. I don't think it's fun for the moderation to have to argue with players after every invasion. Why isn't that perspective considered when you make the rules?

There's another assumption that you make, and that is that you assume that "invading" is synonymous with "griefing." I'm surprised to see this assumption still being made since there were about 5 pages of invader comment on this very point in the unofficial rules thread, much of it very persuasively arguing that griefing is almost never synonymous (in fact, frowned on) in the invasion community. I think that it's abundantly fair the way the FAQ states it that invasion is legal, griefing is not, and I think that's the way it ought to be enforced.

But that still doesn't address the questions about the nativity and founder statuses. In fact, if you think about it carefully, the native/founder statuses become even more important if griefing was abandoned as a tactic. And again, the point has been made (and I'll resurrect it since it's relevant here) that the status quo actually promotes griefing rather than resolves it. It's a crucial point and I feel strongly I'm right about it. Under the status quo, if you wanted to be a founder, the potential rewards for griefing a region and refounding it (and not getting caught doing it) far outweigh the risks of getting caught and deleted.