NationStates Jolt Archive

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/split_sm.jpg from The One-Stop Rules Shop Comments Thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416022)

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +


Thanks, Fris, for providing this expanded sticky. Thanks also, Fris, for your courteous and dipliomatic tone, and willingness to listen to player's input.

Thank you. :)

Now, since Right Thinking Whites still has "Local 8976" in his sig...

This is a victory for NS Local 8976 and for the reform movement. We are moving towards the "Truly User-Friendly Moderation" as outlined at our platform (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=405771) , and we thank the moderators for their efforts. Although we are dissappointed at the fact that we did not get the "legal library" that we hoped for, we feel that this expanded sticky is the solution that balances our desires, Max's wishes (he expressed opposition to the idea), and the resources of the moderators (the time that they have on hand to create the "legal library"). Thus, this is a shining example of the "consensus" that we are advocating.

See, there is a purpose to the reform movement... :)
Good spin, eh?

This is a victory for NS Local 8976 and for the reform movement.
Really? I thought I was doing it for my own convenience. Now I can just paste a link and move on to the next whiner. Laziness = Efficiency, y'know?


MJ Donovan, CEO
Author, "The Lazy Executive's Keys to Success"
The Modulated Oligarchical Corporate States of Frisbeeteria

This is a victory for NS Local 8976 and for the reform movement.

Yes, because rather than scouring the forums to assemble this yourself you sat back and did nothing, hoping someone else would build a database of rules for you so you could take credit for it. Spare us all your bizarre propaganda, please.

We are moving towards the "Truly User-Friendly Moderation" as outlined at our platform , and we thank the moderators for their efforts.

No, we're not. Outlining the existing rules is not a move towards anything. You couldn't defend your ludicrous 'platform' in the original thread [since the only person you responded to properly just happened to be the admin, which rather destroyed your 'man of the people' credentials], and this is not a move taken with any respect to it.

Although we are dissappointed at the fact that we did not get the "legal library" that we hoped for

...And did nothing to create...

Thus, this is a shining example of the "consensus" that we are advocating.

The consensus you are advocating is some kind of absurd and totally unworkable mob rule by mods who are forced to care more about how their actions look to an imaginary 'consensus' than what they actually acheive in concrete results. You can pretend this is a great and staggering victory of your glorious platform over common sense, but in reality it's nothing to do with it at all.

See, there is a purpose to the reform movement... :)
Good spin, eh?

Taking credit for things that have nothing to do with you is your purpose, Sandpit? You think this kind of dishonest spin-doctoring is going to impress anyone?

oh GMC, you know how much old sandpit loves spinning stuff around. can't come up with something decent yourself, take credit for something you didn't do.

he really should look at how his own forum is run first, then complain about bigger forums :p

oh GMC, you know how much old sandpit loves spinning stuff around. can't come up with something decent yourself, take credit for something you didn't do.

he really should look at how his own forum is run first, then complain about bigger forums :p

That would require him actually doing anything with his forums, CG. To date, he's never addressed user complaints that were made in his moderation section, he's dismissed several out of hand in threads where they were made, has chosen to use favoritism in his dealings with users and nepotism in moderator choices, and illustrated a decided preference for dishonesty and subterfuge rather than the full disclosure he so loudly supports being used here.

In other words, his actions have been diametrically opposed to his proposals here on NS. An interesting situation, to be sure.

But hey, what do I know - I'm just observing. ;)

Collected here for your amusement and amazement are summaries of most of the rules and conditions of NationStates, as set by Max Barry, site Administrators [violet] and SalusaSecondus, with precedents from Moderators past, present, and future. The core precepts for all rules in both game and forums can be found in the NationStates Terms of Service (TOS) and Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ).

Ok, so without reading further, I'm stuck on the first line. This is for your amusement? That's ... amazing. I'm at a loss

Please be aware that the following rules are not set in stone. Each case is different, and may be subject to conditions not readily apparent to the regular player. Consideration is given not just to the specific offense, but also the nation's (and in some cases, the player's) prior actions and infractions. Also, new rules may be added as circumstances dictate, and Max and the Admins may invoke special rulings as they see a need.

So this is another exercise in futility just like the last "unofficial rules" thread? I can't help but be a little peeved...

some fuller reactions after I have a chance to look this over.

Done...

ok the first thing is, although you invent rules about "moderation bias" and accusations thereto, you do nothing to address the apparent sources of moderation bias. You also do nothing to address or revise any invasion rules. You don't clarify the exploited grey zones such as nativity and founder status. And worse of all, despite the fact that everyone agrees about the fact that griefing is wrong, there's less in these "rules" about griefing then there is presently

Mods are players too:

You know, at the initial creation of the game maybe this is a possibility. But in the present situation, after the endless problems, inconsistencies, abuses whatnot else that has already been documented and discussed ad naseum, IMO, we are WAY beyond allowing the mods to be moderators of themselves. IMO, they have had their chance at being both, and their behavior shows that they can't handle the difficulties associated with being both players and mods. So to me, this clause and pertaining paragraph is wholly unacceptable.

Haven't I already documented this sufficiently? If not, then let's talk about the Francos Spain affair in which the firestorm glitch erased him (and apparently only him) from the UN. I recently went onto Goobergunchia and for the first time I got the full story about Sythia and Hell. The story about Sythia and Hell made me very upset. This was a situation in which a moderator (currently an ex-moderator) *invented* a founder at a time when founders didn't even exist. He then denied the rightful delegate (sythia) the regional controls just because the moderator was "irked" by Sythia. Then Sythia went on a griefing spree. Well, I can't condone the griefing spree. But the moderators bear some responsibility in this situation too for treating a player that unfairly! I'd be pissed too if a moderator did that to me!

Second of all, if you are going to let mods be players, why not allow in moderators from different viewpoints and experiences of the game? It's really a rhetorical question. IMO, there aren't enough viewpoints and different experiences being represented among the moderators and I think that's severely crippling the eveness of the application of the rules, the process in which the rules are created and so forth.

That's ... amazing. I'm at a lossWords cannot properly express the dismay felt amidst the moderation staff at your loss.So this is another exercise in futility just like the last "unofficial rules" thread?Because it's not set in stone? It will never be set in stone. Rules evolve according to need, just like in real life. I can't help but be a little peeved...Again, words cannot express the dismay ...ok the first thing is, although you invent rules about "moderation bias" and accusations thereto, you do nothing to address the apparent sources of moderation biasMore proof, less angst, please. You also do nothing to address or revise any invasion rules. You don't clarify the exploited grey zones such as nativity and founder status. And worse of all, despite the fact that everyone agrees about the fact that griefing is wrong, there's less in these "rules" about griefing then there is presentlyEach of the posts is editable. Once several key staffers weigh in, we will post invasion rules. I clearly stated they were under review and would be posted separately.

You might also want to take a moment out of your rant to recognize that I posted this list, based on existing precedent, posted rules, and other posts from sources which could be easily located on the boards. There is no new material here, with the possible exception of still-tenative clarification of the UN Advertising rules. You should also realize that many of the staff are college students, and it happens to be exam season. Others have major things going on in Real Life which negatively impact our ability to spend time satisfying every demand from every dissatisfied player on the boards.

It's a stickied, mod-authored, Moderation-posted list of the rules. Other folks seem to be moderately pleased that I volunteered my weekend documenting the game for your benefit. In short, if you aren't satisfied with this particular work-in-progress, nor with the efforts we have continually made to incorporate player opinions and clarifications into this ruleset, I have absolutely zero sympathy for your position.

So this is another exercise in futility just like the last "unofficial rules" thread? I can't help but be a little peeved...Unlike, for instance, my attempt at guidelines for play, this thread comes from an official Moderator. Therefore you may take these rules as canon. Like any good document, it will likely be subject to revision as the Moderation staff adjust them to meet the needs of the community.

If, like so few do, you are not enjoying your experience with NationStates and have legitimate grievances that you feel are not being addressed, then I must ask why are you here? So many folk get along just fine without having to butt heads with the Moderators. If they simply will not help you, you can escalate the problem to the email addresses that are constantly offered to folk. And if you can't get satisfaction there, well, maybe NationStates just isn't the place for you.

I see this too often from folk unwilling to budge on what they consider a "serious problem." "Moderator bias" and "legitimate complaints unaddressed." Obviously, if you were serious about addressing them you would have already followed the procedure outlined in this thread. Either that or you've already been ruled against, in which case you're enjoying the role of the martyr fighting a lost cause. This site is supposed to a privilege maintained for the benefit of Max Barry's fans, certainly not for Max's own health. If you can't get satisfaction and you've exhausted all avenues, please. Move on. Find something else to do on the site or off it. But harping on amorphous accusations of bias, corruption and the like is not helping anyone.

SNIP
Second of all, if you are going to let mods be players, why not allow in moderators from different viewpoints and experiences of the game? It's really a rhetorical question. IMO, there aren't enough viewpoints and different experiences being represented among the moderators and I think that's severely crippling the eveness of the application of the rules, the process in which the rules are created and so forth.

I cant help but notice that sounds like "make me a mod, I'll be a much better mod then we've already got..."

I dont know if that is what you were going for, but that is how I read it

Personally, I found it to be very nice of Fris to donate his time to write it, I dunno about him, but I've got 3 finals down, 3 to go... 19 credits isn't easy, I am sure he isn't going any lighter

Like Treznor, I too attempted a "rule book" (link in sig)
Like Treznor, mine is not Mod-sanctioned (though I did try to get it to be as such)

Unlike Treznor and Fris though... mine is horribly written (hard to follow, foggy, etc)

Case in point, read Fris's (or Treznor's for nestolgia's (sp?) sake) and if you dont like it... well... perhaps I suggest YOU sit down for a day or two, wade through the forum's rulings over the months, and write something that is both infomitive and coherent... let us see how it work?

/endrant

*NOTE* Ish not a mod. If he was, there'd be no more antacids in the house. */NOTE*

The One-Stop Rules Shop
Collected here for your amusement and amazement are summaries of most of the rules and conditions of NationStates, as set by Max Barry, site Administrators [violet] and SalusaSecondus, with precedents from Moderators past, present, and future. The core precepts for all rules in both game and forums can be found in the NationStates Terms of Service (TOS) and Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ).

Please be aware that the following rules are not set in stone. Each case is different, and may be subject to conditions not readily apparent to the regular player. Consideration is given not just to the specific offense, but also the nation's (and in some cases, the player's) prior actions and infractions. Also, new rules may be added as circumstances dictate, and Max and the Admins may invoke special rulings as they see a need.

Privacy: Moderators shouldn’t be able to delete telegrams when putting them on “the mod-log for future reference.” These telegrams also belong to the player to whom they were sent.

Appeals: The appeal process is insufficient and inadequate. There ought to be a layer of oversight of the moderators that avoids having to require appealing directly to Salusa or Max.


Each case is different, and may be subject to conditions not readily apparent to the regular player. Consideration is given not just to the specific offense, but also the nation's (and in some cases, the player's) prior actions and infractions. Also, new rules may be added as circumstances dictate, and Max and the Admins may invoke special rulings as they see a need.

That’s arbitrary and inequitable on its face, and prone to unpredictability in the enforcement of the rules. It seems like you’re trying to say that you want to use an “unwritten constitution” approach to the game rules. But, even “unwritten constitutions” require there be equitable application of the rules so that people who are governed by those rules can have the ability to decipher them and make a rational decision as to whether or not they wish to follow them. Given the way you put it, you could be abiding by the rules and still in trouble, which is neither equitable nor predictable.

The two roleplay forums are alike in many ways, but very different. Roleplay etiquette is enforced primarily by other players, but moderators can intervene in certain cases. Note that using moderators as weapons to attack your RP enemies is much more likely to backfire on you than hurt them.

There ought to be a category of threads near the roleplaying threads that specifically pertains to roleplaying moderation. Such a thing would distinguish roleplaying moderation from invasion moderation. There might also be a moderator who specifically addresses gripes during roleplaying.

Region Pimping: It seems like this is an unnecessary use of moderator’s time to worry about this.

Mods are players too: But roleplaying or issues aren’t really the reasons why there is concern about moderators playing the game, at least from my perspective. The real reason for concern is the perception that moderators invade/defend and have before in the past used their position to try to influence the politics of certain regions. That is clearly abusive of their privilege within the game and that’s got to stop.

Rules Lawyers: I think this is the most ridiculous part. The rules are applied arbitrarily and unevenly, and if a player complains about it citing examples that support his/her position, s/he is a rule lawyer? Rules exist to provide a stable, predictable framework in which the game might exist. Having a rule in a place creates an expectation that that rule will be uniformly enforced. If you are talking about an “unwritten constitution,” the same is still true. In unwritten constitutions, “precedent” rules. If precedent is set once but in the future not followed strictly, then the nature of all the rules is undermined and arbitrariness sets in. The problem with arbitrariness is that often leads to a lack of predictability, and games that lack predictability are not playable, and are not worth playing. Long story short, if you invent a rule once, you got to enforce it the same way later on.

If I were to name an "invader mod," I'd nominate either 1 Infinite Loop or Cosmo Kramerica... Francos being no longer around ...

Ok, so without reading further, I'm stuck on the first line. This is for your amusement? That's ... amazing. I'm at a loss

Oh, get over yourself.

So this is another exercise in futility just like the last "unofficial rules" thread? I can't help but be a little peeved...

I can't help but be a little... apathetic. You've offered nothing constructive, simply opting to bitch about Moderator bias, even when a Game Admin tells you to knock it off.

As has been mentioned above, this is a ruleset written by a Game Official. Therefore, it carries full weight. While the rules may change over time (something that happens in every single aspect of life), this is the current form of the rules.

ok the first thing is, although you invent rules about "moderation bias" and accusations thereto, you do nothing to address the apparent sources of moderation bias.

Here we go again.

You also do nothing to address or revise any invasion rules.

Oh, don't worry. We're reviewing those...

You don't clarify the exploited grey zones such as nativity and founder status.

Exploited grey zones?! There are no "grey zones" dealing with Founders. Your strident unwillingness to accept that Founders have absolute power is not a matter of "moderator bias", it's a matter of your refusal to accept reality.

And worse of all, despite the fact that everyone agrees about the fact that griefing is wrong, there's less in these "rules" about griefing then there is presently

What part of "in progress" are you incapable of understanding?

IMO, we are WAY beyond allowing the mods to be moderators of themselves.

That and $1.25 will get you a cup of coffee at Denny's.

IMO, they have had their chance at being both, and their behavior shows that they can't handle the difficulties associated with being both players and mods. So to me, this clause and pertaining paragraph is wholly unacceptable.

Pity that Max, [violet], and Salusa all seem to disagree with you, and their opinion carries considerably more weight than yours.

Haven't I already documented this sufficiently? If not, then let's talk about the Francos Spain affair in which the firestorm glitch erased him (and apparently only him) from the UN.

He returned to power, didn't he?

The story about Sythia and Hell made me very upset. This was a situation in which a moderator (currently an ex-moderator) *invented* a founder at a time when founders didn't even exist.

Oh, please. Neut couldn't have "invented a founder... when founders didn't even exist" as that would be changing how the game was coded. Do you even think about inconsistancies when you type?

But the moderators bear some responsibility in this situation too for treating a player that unfairly! I'd be pissed too if a moderator did that to me!

You do realise that was something like 18 months ago, right?

Second of all, if you are going to let mods be players, why not allow in moderators from different viewpoints and experiences of the game? It's really a rhetorical question. IMO, there aren't enough viewpoints and different experiences being represented among the moderators and I think that's severely crippling the eveness of the application of the rules, the process in which the rules are created and so forth.

This old saw? Let's see here... hmm... yup. Just as I expected.

Once again, you throw out plenty of bitching, but nothing that could be considered "useful". Still, "not enough viewpoints", hmm?

We have: liberals, conservatives, libertarians, pro-democracy, anti-democracy, socialists, communist, capitalists, capitalizts, Bush supports, Bush haters, America lovers, America haters, Cthulhu lovers, Catholics, atheists, deists, worshipers of other faiths, Discordians, role-players, general forumites, gameplayers, tech/mod junkies, UN junkies, and on, and on, and on.

I think we have pretty much everything covered. Granted, we don't have anyone from the "bitchy player who hates the current moderation team" group, but I would think the reasons for that are quite understandable.

As for your deconstruction of the rules themselves, I'll get to that later; running short on time right now.

Hey Hack, how come every time we butt heads in this forum you flame me? This goes back to the Francos thing. I really don't appreciate it. Is this theard open to comments or not? Do you seriously want player comments, because this thread is titled "One-Stop Rules Shop Comments Thread" so I was under the impression that constructive criticism was being solcited, and I am offering some.

incidentally, I appealed your flame to the moderation desk and appealed that decision to Salusa. I deserve respect just like any one else who plays this game.

I recently went onto Goobergunchia and for the first time I got the full story about Sythia and Hell. The story about Sythia and Hell made me very upset. This was a situation in which a moderator (currently an ex-moderator) *invented* a founder at a time when founders didn't even exist. He then denied the rightful delegate (sythia) the regional controls just because the moderator was "irked" by Sythia. Then Sythia went on a griefing spree. Well, I can't condone the griefing spree. But the moderators bear some responsibility in this situation too for treating a player that unfairly! I'd be pissed too if a moderator did that to me!

I don't know how you "went onto" me. Sounds rather kinky. :eek:

At any rate, Founders were exceedingly extant at the time of the Hell affair, and Sythia was already DEAT-on-sight. Your story doesn't sound like the one I remember.

I don't know how you "went onto" me. Sounds rather kinky. :eek:

At any rate, Founders were exceedingly extant at the time of the Hell affair, and Sythia was already DEAT-on-sight. Your story doesn't sound like the one I remember.


Ah, Goober. You see, this is the way of those here more interested in causing trouble where none is really needed or wanted, or in trying to appeal to player's innate sense of OMG OUTRAGE! with misdirection and selective samplings rather than using all the facts.

I've yet to see much of content from DPR who has made it obvious from when he logged onto IRC, and continued things on the forums, that he's out for a crusade against the powers that be - who obviously know less about how things ought to run than himself.

I'd say I never tire of seeing this sort of thing, but the fact is ... I do. I can't possibly be the only one.


[edit]DPR: I suggest you look up the difference between 'constructive criticism' and 'harrassment'. You may be surprised.

Oh, get over yourself.

You know it's funny but sometimes I seriously have to question exactly how come there isn't a more substantive, rational honest apparisal of what goes on here. Sometimes I wonder, are the mods just being stubborn about certain things or is there a greater design in how it works? You know, maybe the mods have been tilting towards antis because you don't want to give a bad name to Jennifer Government. That's about the only theory I've been able to work out - I would appreciate some feedback about that theory.

I can't help but be a little... apathetic. You've offered nothing constructive, simply opting to bitch about Moderator bias, even when a Game Admin tells you to knock it off.

I think it's unfair to say there's a thread soliciting feedback and I'm told to be silent because I give constructive criticism.


Oh, don't worry. We're reviewing those....
Ok, well, surprising, honestly, because it's been over a year since the last time the rules were reviewed, and there was a seeming connection to the review and the Francos glitch in the Pacific (which, even Salusa admits was handled poorly from the beginning).

Exploited grey zones?! There are no "grey zones" dealing with Founders. Your strident unwillingness to accept that Founders have absolute power is not a matter of "moderator bias", it's a matter of your refusal to accept reality.

Well, but there's also a refusal to look at the connection between griefing and founding. People grief to re-found highly strategic regions that are being squatted on by roleplayers. It seems that if griefing were to be mitigated, that a fair trade off might be establishing a fairer process of becoming a founder.

And there is a connection between founders and natives, because it makes sense to many players that after a period of time, the previous natives lost the region and there ought to be no more dispute after an invasion.

What I'm getting at Re: moderator bias, which I've brought to the attention of Salusa and Max, is the unevenness in the application of the "unwritten rules" or the precedent. As far as I am aware, Salusa agrees with me that the unpredicitablity in the invasion gameplay, which IMO cannot be disputed, is unacceptable. You know ... after you've been unfairly deleted for kicking out antis after an invasion, you might win on appeal, but you're still deleted and your invasion is over. That kind of stuff is prevalent and makes the invasion gameplay, which is an offiically legal part of the game, unpredictable.

When the true king's murderers were allowed to roam free,
A thousand Magicians arise in the land

-Jim Morrisson, "An American Prayer"

You know, I notice that I keep mentioning that invasion is legal, and i think that it's partly because I have to keep reminding myself of that. I have to remind myself because it seems like in the application of the rules, that invasion is not really a welcome aspect of the game, but the mods suffer it because of the higher ups. Am I close on this? Would appreciate comment.


What part of "in progress" are you incapable of understanding?

you just mentioned this ... how am i supposed to know this??

Pity that Max, [violet], and Salusa all seem to disagree with you, and their opinion carries considerably more weight than yours.

Actually, Salusa agrees with me (or said he did) that a). that the invasion gameplay was inappropriately unpredictable and b) that the Francos affair, for instance was mishandled for the beginning. I definitely remember you being involved in the Francos affair.

GMC: The prescence of the quote box, smiley, and the lighthearted comment "Good spin, eh?" suggested that that part was to be taken in jest. But since you took it seriously, I will address it seriously.

The consensus you are advocating is some kind of absurd and totally unworkable mob rule by mods who are forced to care more about how their actions look to an imaginary 'consensus' than what they actually acheive in concrete results. You can pretend this is a great and staggering victory of your glorious platform over common sense, but in reality it's nothing to do with it at all.

No, that consensus means Max, players, and moderators working together to create a better Nationstates. However, in order for this partnership to exist, we must take into consideration what everyone thinks and work out a solution that balances the interests and wishes of Max, moderators, and players.

Now, Fris has attempted to encourage consensus, as shown in the quote in my sig. I may not have as diplomatic a tone as Peechland, and for that I aplogize, but I am trying to work with the mods here. Please work with me.

That being said, i refuse to make any more posts about this topic in this thread, because like you suggested, it's time to stop the plain talk and get into action.

No, that consensus means Max, players, and moderators working together to create a better Nationstates. However, in order for this partnership to exist, we must take into consideration what everyone thinks and work out a solution that balances the interests and wishes of Max, moderators, and players.

No, that's exactly what we don't need. You're confusing moderation with a political process where consensus means something, but it's not, it's a technical process. It might be correct for Boeing to ask it's shareholders what colour their next plane should be, but if they took a poll that 90% of their shareholders wanted the 747 to have half the wing area, do you think they would bow to that 'consensus?'

Of course they wouldn't. So why do you think it's a good idea for use to bow to popular pressure on issues relating to technical processes in this case?

Now, Fris has attempted to encourage consensus, as shown in the quote in my sig. I may not have as diplomatic a tone as Peechland, and for that I aplogize, but I am trying to work with the mods here. Please work with me.

You're trying to work with the mods by taking credit for Fris' work as some great achievement of your 'platform?' And you are not trying to work with us at all. You made it very clear with the Timsults (http://www.galactec.com/timothy/content.php?code=tj6) slipped into your platform thread that you think we are insufficiently courteous, do not listen to our players and suchlike, and you have gone on the record saying THIS as well.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/GMCMA/Other%20stuff/Sandpit-1.jpg

If that's someone who supports us, I'm scared. Hold me, Fris. :eek:

That being said, i refuse to make any more posts about this topic in this thread, because like you suggested, it's time to stop the plain talk and get into action.

In other words you're running away again, just like in the platform thread. Colour me surprised.

That being said, i refuse to make any more posts about this topic in this thread, because like you suggested, it's time to stop the plain talk and get into action.

What type of action? You seem to be awfully sure that your "platform" is something possible, which it's clearly not, I fail to see how going into "action" is going to better the game. What Fris has done with his weekend is by far the better way to make NS a better place, his action has helped, so far, your action has done nothing but create division.

You know it's funny but sometimes I seriously have to question exactly how come there isn't a more substantive, rational honest apparisal of what goes on here. Sometimes I wonder, are the mods just being stubborn about certain things or is there a greater design in how it works? You know, maybe the mods have been tilting towards antis because you don't want to give a bad name to Jennifer Government. That's about the only theory I've been able to work out - I would appreciate some feedback about that theory. No, I think it's just that we're sick of people complaining without offering anything constructive.

I think it's unfair to say there's a thread soliciting feedback and I'm told to be silent because I give constructive criticism.If you had given constructive criticism it would be a different situation. As is, the post I was responding to offered nothing helpful.

Ok, well, surprising, honestly, because it's been over a year since the last time the rules were reviewed, You have been told numerous times that the invader rules were under review. In fact, you were told this less than a week ago.

you just mentioned this [work in progress]... how am i supposed to know this?? I dunno. Perhaps by reading the ruleset?

Please be aware that the following rules are not set in stone. Each case is different, and may be subject to conditions not readily apparent to the regular player. Consideration is given not just to the specific offense, but also the nation's (and in some cases, the player's) prior actions and infractions. Also, new rules may be added as circumstances dictate, and Max and the Admins may invoke special rulings as they see a need.Would seem to imply that these things are fluid. And, of course, there's things like this:

Invasion Rules: Invasion rules are under review, and will be posted separately.

Actually, Salusa agrees with me (or said he did) that a). that the invasion gameplay was inappropriately unpredictable and b) that the Francos affair, for instance was mishandled for the beginning. I definitely remember you being involved in that.The discussion or the affair itself? If you mean the later, you are quite mistaken.

And you keep harping on the Francos affair (as well as Sythia in Hell). I'm curious as to why you keep doing this. These events happened quite awhile ago, back when the rules for invasions were even less defined, less evenly applied, and less understood by players and Mods. Everybody was new at it when those events were happening, so errors were to be expected. Furthermore, the principal Mod in both of those events is no longer active in the Squad, or indeed, the game.

So, is this a personal vendetta against someone in no position to defend himself, are you incapable of pointing to something recent, or do you just like to complain?

SNIP
The problem with arbitrariness is that often leads to a lack of predictability, and games that lack predictability are not playable, and are not worth playing.
SNIP

If that is the way you feel... then by all means stop playing... ;)

*NOTE* Ish not a mod. If he was, there'd be no more antacids in the house. */NOTE*

EDIT: Uhm... I've just read the last 3 posts by DPR and the 2 from MGH... I suggest DPR calm a bit... I'd rather not see someone need to pull out the fire extinguisher.....

*HIDES*
/EDIT

Originally posted by Dred Pirate Roberts
IMO, we are WAY beyond allowing the mods to be moderators of themselves. IMO, they have had their chance at being both, and their behavior shows that they can't handle the difficulties associated with being both players and mods.

*yawns*
every game online there are always people who claim that the staff would be better at their job if they were not players. These people are 99% of the time in the minority and quite frankly they are wrong.
If they only hired people who were willing to stop being players in order to be staff they would most likely only get people who were bored of the game anyway and so they would make worse staff.
If staff get to also be players then it means that they are more in touch with what players want and need for the game, also they are more likely to find the rule breakers as they might actually get approached by them ingame (assuming the staff are clever enough to keep some of their ingame names secret :P)
Overall this is really a very bad idea and i'm suprised people still believe it.

Since this exchange really has little to do with Fris' hard work in synthesizing the ruleset.... iSplit.

*yawns*
every game online there are always people who claim that the staff would be better at their job if they were not players. These people are 99% of the time in the minority and quite frankly they are wrong.
If they only hired people who were willing to stop being players in order to be staff they would most likely only get people who were bored of the game anyway and so they would make worse staff.
If staff get to also be players then it means that they are more in touch with what players want and need for the game, also they are more likely to find the rule breakers as they might actually get approached by them ingame (assuming the staff are clever enough to keep some of their ingame names secret :P)
Overall this is really a very bad idea and i'm suprised people still believe it.
I defiantly understand where you are going with this … I used to mod antrophia (several thousand players) and also was game coder and people with vested interest in the game make WAY better mod’s and developers.

Not only do they get a feel for what the people talking to them are going through but they also are more interested in taking an active roll in the game

So, is this a personal vendetta against someone in no position to defend himself, are you incapable of pointing to something recent, or do you just like to complain?

Excuse me, that's entirely unfair and rude. No, this is not a "personal vendetta." That is ridiculous and impolite and expect an apology. I've offered constructive criticism re: what I perceive to be flaws in the games' rules. These criticisms were solicited by Frisbeteria. I do have strong opinions and have expressed them strongly. If you disagree with what I say, fine. But, in no way should you take what I say to be personal.

No, I think it's just that we're sick of people complaining without offering anything constructive.

I haven't offered anything constructive? I think that's unfair and I dispute that. Constructive criticisms that I've offered so far (the chief ones:)

* moderators should not be sitting in their own judgement, they should stop stradling being players and referees.
* there ought to be an appeals process between Salusa and the other game moderators
* there ought to be greater predictability in the invasion gameplay, and one thing that needs to be addressed is requiring moderator accountability in the evenness of application of the rules.

I've laid these suggestions out in a clear manner. I suggest that a cooler, more respectful and less emotional approach would make it easier to have this conversation.

It may happen that nothing changes. I would strongly disagree, but so long as it was told to me that nothing was going to change, i could live with it. There's nothing I can do to demand change. Take it or leave it, but it would be incorrect to accuse of me of not being (or trying to be) constructive.

And you keep harping on the Francos affair (as well as Sythia in Hell). I'm curious as to why you keep doing this. These events happened quite awhile ago, back when the rules for invasions were even less defined, less evenly applied, and less understood by players and Mods. Everybody was new at it when those events were happening, so errors were to be expected. Furthermore, the principal Mod in both of those events is no longer active in the Squad, or indeed, the game.

I'll answer this but I apologize if this distracts from the rest of my post, which I think you should take notice of. I was mod-bombed during the Francos affair because I protested some of the actions that occurred. So the Francos thing is somewhat personal for me re: the actions of the mods. In fact, it was you who mod-bombed me. But more importantly, it is a concrete example that mods and players both agree wasn't handled properly. It is also, my gut tells me, the motivation for creating the original mod-sponsored players-comments on the invasion rules.

THe sythia thing is more complicated and I can't address it sufficiently right now. But basically, the point is, Sythia wasn't treated fairly and if you are still looking for concrete proof of improper moderator behavior, there it is. I would like to venture that there is a cause-and-effect relationship to the unfairness of the mods to some of Sythia's bad behavior, and that cause-and-effect cycle is still present because of the arbitrariness in the status quo conception of the rules.

Privacy: Moderators shouldn’t be able to delete telegrams when putting them on “the mod-log for future reference.” These telegrams also belong to the player to whom they were sent.Not a game mod, so I’m skipping this one.

Appeals: The appeal process is insufficient and inadequate. There ought to be a layer of oversight of the moderators that avoids having to require appealing directly to Salusa or Max. Like having Senior Game Mods or something? We have those. Newer mods like me use them as resources all the time. Or were you perhaps thinking of a player-controlled board of Mod-supervisors who get to vet any decision that a player doesn’t like before Admin can act? Sorry, don’t buy it. Max and [violet] picked us because they trusted our judgment. What does another layer of bureaucracy add to the mix?

Re: each case is different. That’s arbitrary and inequitable on its face, and prone to unpredictability in the enforcement of the rules. It seems like you’re trying to say that you want to use an “unwritten constitution” approach to the game rules. But, even “unwritten constitutions” require there be equitable application of the rules so that people who are governed by those rules can have the ability to decipher them and make a rational decision as to whether or not they wish to follow them. Given the way you put it, you could be abiding by the rules and still in trouble, which is neither equitable nor predictable. This is the complaint that gives me the most trouble, because it makes no sense whatsoever. Every case IS different. Are you saying we should have a single standard punishment for every infraction, published so that we’re all accountable? I see why you want this, but let’s look at it a minute.

If we have “mandatory sentencing”, then we are required to treat somebody saying “DPR is an jerk” a couple of times in exactly the same way that we treat someone who comes here and pours bucket after bucket of vitriol onto the forums in every post. Do we have to have a graduated system of offenses for each of George Carlin’s list of 2,443 dirty words (http://www.georgecarlin.com/dirty/2443.html), and then evaluate the use of combinations? No, it’s a judgment call. It HAS to be.

Do we treat every invader and defender exactly alike? I know that’s what you want to see. Do you think it makes a difference if invaders grief a single-nation region any more or less than it would for a 20-nation region? A 50-nation region? Do we use fixed percentages? Does the percentage of UN versus non-UN nations make a difference? Do we need to run a timer on the unbanning sequence. Do we call it regional happenings spam if you all enter over the space of 5 minutes rather than 15 minutes? Do we need to install tracking beacons on every telegram sent to every nation to indicate whether the recipient has read it or not?

How does nativity work when you bop out of your region for 5 minutes to leave a message on somebody else’s region board? Do you lose it? Why not? What is the standard? Do we have to attach a string to each of the 134,000 active nations (with more being created and dying every hour), just so we can see exactly where they’ve been and what they’ve been doing? Should they have to be resident in their region for 75% of the last 2 months, but they’re allowed to leave for quick invasions or defenses? Do YOU plan to code all this, ‘cause I can’t.

We make judgment calls because this simple game is too complicated to do otherwise. I’m not interested in digging through 200 pages of itemized rules every time I run across a spammer. You have no idea how complicated this mod business already is. A simple spam post requires about 20 steps to resolve, and the only ones you see are the deleted post and my response of “done” in the Moderation forum. Everything you’re asking for adds horrendous complications to the business of modding, and frankly there just isn’t enough time in the day to deal with all of it as it is.

There ought to be a category of threads near the roleplaying threads that specifically pertains to roleplaying moderation. Such a thing would distinguish roleplaying moderation from invasion moderation. There might also be a moderator who specifically addresses gripes during roleplaying.There are. Forum Mods and Game Mods. Duh.

Region Pimping: It seems like this is an unnecessary use of moderator’s time to worry about this.The single thing that is probably the easiest task in our arsenal, and provides the most satisfaction to forumites who are tired of seeing out-of-place threads in their RP or UN or General space, and you want us to stop. I can move a thread in 30 seconds, including an explanation post in two places. I have no idea why you picked this out, but it’s totally arbitrary. If the rest of your commentary wasn’t already suspect, this would have made it so.

Mods are players too: But roleplaying or issues aren’t really the reasons why there is concern about moderators playing the game, at least from my perspective. This has been adequately addressed by others.

Rules Lawyers: I think this is the most ridiculous partYou’re right. I should be doing something I want to do or need to do, but instead I’m answering a rules-lawyer. I’ve got things I’d rather be doing, and I think I’ll go do some of them now.

Privacy: Moderators shouldn’t be able to delete telegrams when putting them on “the mod-log for future reference.” These telegrams also belong to the player to whom they were sent.

Check the T&C. This site is owned by Max - telegrams and all.

Dred Pirate Roberts, you keep invoking my name as if it somehow validates your points. It doesn't.

I agree with you on one or two facts. That's it. I made clear my disagreement with you on practically everything else (including the majority of what's being discussed here). You admitted that you didn't understand all of the issues involved, and I told you some of them and explained to you why they were so complex. Your criticism hasn't been constructive and can easily be seen (by anyone with experience moderating) as completely unfeasible, and usually not well thought out.

Please, if your going to keep spouting off about moderator bias and everything we're doing wrong, don't use my name? I don't support the great majority of your opinions (about the only one that I agree with is that the invasion rules have problems) and I definitely don't support you.

SNIP
Do we call it regional happenings spam if you all enter over the space of 5 minutes rather than 15 minutes?
SNIP

Uhm... Fris, just to check (because I dont want my troops deleted) but it is no longer legal for us to move together? To mask movements, we usually sync-up using AIM/MSN or similar such that we all arive in-region within 30-60 seconds of the first...

so should we stop this then?

*NOTE* Ish not a mod. If he was, there'd be no more antacids in the house. */NOTE*

Uhm... Fris, just to check (because I dont want my troops deleted) but it is no longer legal for us to move together?
The preceding was a hypothetical discussion on the variables of the invasion game. No new rulings or suggestions were to be inferred or implied by anyone in any case. This was entirely for the purpose of demonstrating that the so-called "simple rules of invasions" he was suggesting were anything but simple and entirely impractical.



No rules were harmed in the production of this post.

Ah... thanks for the clarification... so we only need to worry if you guys decide to change the invasion rules... thanks for the clarification

For diciplines sake, we like to move together... scares our enemy, and masks our numbers in rare cases

NOTE: I am not a rules-lawyer, I am a general... though I am 1/3 of the way on my goal to being an IRL lawyer...

* moderators should not be sitting in their own judgement, they should stop stradling being players and referees.

Max has stated on numerous occations that he wants the Mods to also be players. This won't be changing.

* there ought to be an appeals process between Salusa and the other game moderators

Scolopendra, Reploid Productions, Sirocco, and Melkor Unchained are all Senior Game Moderators; Reploid Productions is a Forum Administrator. You can go to them.

So the Francos thing is somewhat personal for me re: the actions of the mods. In fact, it was you who mod-bombed me.

I disupute this. Name of the nation?

But basically, the point is, Sythia wasn't treated fairly and if you are still looking for concrete proof of improper moderator behavior, there it is. I would like to venture that there is a cause-and-effect relationship to the unfairness of the mods to some of Sythia's bad behavior, and that cause-and-effect cycle is still present because of the arbitrariness in the status quo conception of the rules.

Of course Sythia's chronic and clear-cut griefing had nothing to do with being DoS. Right.