NationStates Jolt Archive

Out of curiousity, I saw something that I wasn't aware of in a UN forum thread about a "Neutrality" resolution / idea.

In the debate, the subject of ignore cannons came up, and the following post was passed along suggesting that IGNORE CANNONS are not assumed to be automatically on. Personally, I don't like this idea, as it seems to me as though it supports the idea of forced RPs ... namely if somebody you don't like wants to nuke you, that they can point to a post like this can claim that you can't IGNORE somebody or if you did, you are within your rights.

Here is the post, but the entire thread is worth reading (it is short and civil):

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9022042&postcount=17

What I'm interested in here is just learning more about IGNORE CANNONS and how moderation views they are _best_ used in RPing. I'm wondering if somebody has written something up on this.

I'll go ahead and say this: I did not intend it to sound as if I was speaking about mods deciding that. It's a trend I've noticed in the player community, specifically with the types of RPs.

I will, if given a few minutes, provide links to previous mod decisions and discussion topics on this issue.

Edit: The list of what I have found so far on the issue. I am including the entire topics, as they are often necessary.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=345365
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=407062
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=384277 (this is about when the change I mentioned began to happen)
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023

In the debate, the subject of ignore cannons came up, and the following post was passed along suggesting that IGNORE CANNONS are not assumed to be automatically on.Personal decision.Personally, I don't like this idea, as it seems to me as though it supports the idea of forced RPs ... namely if somebody you don't like wants to nuke you, that they can point to a post like this can claim that you can't IGNORE somebody or if you did, you are within your rights.It's called 'Free Form' for a reason. You can do whatever the hell you want. Your nation, not theirs.

PS: For gods sake, don't use friggin CAPITAL LETTERS for the term 'ignore' (Or even worse, the dipshit term 'Ignore Cannon'). It's horribly annoying. Why not go with a simple 'Go away, I don't want to have anything to do with you.'? :/

EDIT: And DLE's not particularly smart. IGNORE cannons against an invasion of your nation that are used just because you are being invaded is pretty much poor ettiquette. can hardly apply in an Roleplay environment, where consent is a necessity. If one is the ashole who tries to pull this 'I invade you!' shit, one simply has it coming. And the idea of (Primarily) UN/ Gameplay/ General players/ nations caring about 'poor etiquette' is mildly, well, amusing at best, although 'stupid' is probably the better term.

I'll go ahead and say this: I did not intend it to sound as if I was speaking about mods deciding that. It's a trend I've noticed in the player community, specifically with the types of RPs.

I will, if given a few minutes, provide links to previous mod decisions on this issue.

You might want to append your post in the UN forum then, because it did *not* come across as an opinion, but rather as though you were stating a rule. [A rule / trend that I do not think is correct, in part based on my observations in II-based-roleplaying and what I've learned by lurking on mIRC (for reasons I'll explain after a moderator has talked about this).]


In addition to whatever posts you have to support your opinion (and I'm curious to seeing them), I'm asking that a(the) moderator(s) actually provide (when time permits) an official policy as well. And naturally I'm extending this to other players as well. :) I'm really interested in discussing a the NationStates philosophy related to IGNORE CANNONS, and there are many non-moderators or ex-mods who's opinions I want to hear.

Perhaps this isn't a moderation topic, because I'm not asking for an action, but a discussion on how the forum / game work. If there is a better location, please move this thread.

Thanks!
-Michael

EDIT: And DLE's not particularly smart. can hardly apply in an Roleplay environment, where consent is a necessity. If one is the ashole who tries to pull this 'I invade you!' shit, one simply has it coming. And the idea of (Primarily) UN/ Gameplay/ General players/ nations caring about 'poor etiquette' is mildly, well, amusing at best, although 'stupid' is probably the better term.

There is a difference between using an ignore and simply not consenting to an RP. For example, Iuthia refused to consent to a recent RP of mine. It wasn't an ignore, but a simple case of not wanting to RP in the way I was. The tactic I'm talking about is the one mentioned in the third link, a practice utilized in the past by Kahta and a few others. That is what led to those efforts and, in turn, the change in roleplaying trends.

You might want to append your post in the UN forum then, because it did *not* come across as an opinion, but rather as though you were stating a rule.

I'll post there and make a note of it. Oh, I editted my post to include a few links. Finding anything with the search function is like trying to find a black-haired asian girl you met the previous night while in Tokyo.

PS: For gods sake, don't use friggin CAPITAL LETTERS for the term 'ignore' (Or even worse, the dipshit term 'Ignore Cannon'). It's horribly annoying. Why not go with a simple 'Go away, I don't want to have anything to do with you.'?

Thanks for the feedback.

I thought that I.G.N.O.R.E. is what they were actually called (reference Resolution #49, "Rights and Duties of UN States" -- which was drafted based on terminology used in the game last year). *shrug*

I thought that I.G.N.O.R.E. is what they were actually called (reference Resolution #49, "Rights and Duties of UN States" -- which was drafted based on terminology used in the game last year). *shrug*Well, *cringes* some do, but it's a pain to watch/ read it, and there is *really* no need to pull out this particular, and in general rather annoying, terminology.

There is a difference between using an ignore and simply not consenting to an RP. For example, Iuthia refused to consent to a recent RP of mine. It wasn't an ignore, but a simple case of not wanting to RP in the way I was. The tactic I'm talking about is the one mentioned in the third link, a practice utilized in the past by Kahta and a few others. That is what led to those efforts and, in turn, the change in roleplaying trends.Yes, there is a difference. A difference in terminology, but the effect remains exactly the same. I can tell $Person that I don't want to have anything to do with them in a particular time and place or I can tell $Person that I don't wnat to ever see them, again.

OMFG I IGNOREZ YUO! is used in exactly the same scenarios, to exactly the same effect, with a bit of stupidity and general unpleasantness added for good measure.

And the 'tactic' you mention is in no way different. It may, on occasion, actually be bad etiquette, rather than a necessary precaution (The Kahta case you mentioned is actually a good example of it, I will admit that), but frankly... If the other side doesn't realise the problem beforehand (It didn't) and if it still wants to stomp (It did) then they're not particularly smart, confusing NS with real time strategy (And I should add that I prefer poor etiquette to the horrible bitch- and wankfests that ensure from forced interaction).

And of course, in the thread that brought this up, poor etiquette is nowhere to be found, merely a desire to get rid of $Annoying_and_not_particularly_wanted_Roleplay_Factor, so your example is rather obviously 1. Not applying there and 2. Quite simply not generally applicable.

(PS: I'm fairly mystified as of why you linked to a thread that concerns itself with General/ Gameplay, rather than RP, and with the actual jolt ignore feature rather than OMFG ARTILLERY!. It really doesn't help your point...)

The reason why I included the one about the General forum is the ruling on the IGNORE function for it also applies to roleplaying threads in cases where the side-effects of role playing (the OOC conversations) are involved.

OFFICIAL MODERATOR STATEMENT

It is assumed that each player can come to their own decision about how to work their personal reality; both ignoring everything you don't give explicit permission to and allowing anything you don't explicitly say you are ignoring are valid ways to play the game, just choose whichever is best for you and make sure others know of your choice if you feel it'll come up in RP. The second is not more valid than the first, for anyone who's ever run through that whole ridiculous 'but real wars aren't planned!' setup; this is a game, not a real war, and if players want to plan all their RPs that's up to them.

Oh, one other thing regardless of your choice:

DO NOT PUBLISH IGNORE LISTS. THEY ARE TROLLING.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/GMCMA/Other%20stuff/reibann.gif

I thought that I.G.N.O.R.E. is what they were actually called

That's from a dark period on NationStates, when people liked to beat around the bush. Since people didn't want to actually tell someone to sod off and die, they decided to create cute little bits of fluff in character. Since these things revolved around wars (usually), they were given military terminology, thus the "ignore cannon". It was usually accompanied by a black and white photo of some antiquated piece of junk.

Kitsylvania was an exception. He (she? hee) simply had a high-tech "field" around his nation that stopped wankery. Whatever.

After awhile, the resident Doga Queen, Reploid Productions, decided to whip up a CG of a really freaking huge ignore cannon. She also made "ignore" stand for something (in an attempt, I guess, to make is more IC). Thus we got the I.G.N.O.R.E. cannon. It stood for something like Idiot Godmoder Neutralization etc. I don't really remember.

This, of course, lead to every whackbag who bothered to download a free rendering program to follow suit. Eventually Reploid one, largely because nobody else bothered to make an I.G.N.O.R.E. cannon the size of a planet. Or a galaxy. I forget which.

Anyway, at this point it had become a pale shadow of what it once was, more a farce than anything and the last in a dying trend of giving OOC terms IC meanings (ie: NOOB: Nations Operating Ostentatiously in their Beginning). It largely died away and was generally ignored (heh) by the old guard.

Unfortunately, newer nations saw remants of the old nonsense and thought it was SOP, and started using it themselves. Part of this is probably because of the creation of II. Most of the nations who'd grown tired of this sort of thing were in NS, so there was hardly anybody in II to tell them to knock it off and quit acting like idiots. It somehow spread into the UN forum and General (seriously... how the fuck did that happen?).

So, what we have left is the twisted shadow of an unfunny and old joke.

Players still don't realise that when they're told to "just ignore" someone, nobody is talking about some stupid-ass cannon or other IC mechanism. We mean don't read their posts.

Even with the bloody cannons already.

And, for the love of God, can we quit posting IGNORE CANNONS FIRED! every time some idiot posts something stupid in the forum?

It spread to the UN forum because that forum has the highest turnover of new members. That's part of why we have the largest percentage of regulars who are also evil towards new people, as well as the highest percentage of famous people who are just evil.

It spread to the UN forum because that forum has the highest turnover of new members. That's part of why we have the largest percentage of regulars who are also evil towards new people, as well as the highest percentage of famous people who are just evil.

*rolls eyes*

From the way I understand it, the term was already used in the UN forum before Fris's resolution because there was a time when players cross-posted between forums on a more regular basis. So I'm suggesting the terms use in the UN forum came from a time when the UN forum wasn't as isolated as it is today.

Though there is a difference between the "cannons" / forum tactic and the Jolt forum feature (a point you seem to have confused), back in the early 1990s many usenet subscription services had an ignore feature in order for usenet readers to simply do away with people whom frequently posted things they simply didn't want to speed time reading. Like the Unfree People mentioned in the one of the links you provided, I actually like how usenet and Jolt include the feature. (As Der Angst pointed out, that particular link actually is not related -- it has nothing to do with ignoring roleplaying, but instead is about ignoring _all posts_.)

In any event, I'm glad GMC and others have reaffirmed that it is official game policy that players don't have to take as "fact" the events that other players want to force on them, but that NationStates is about consent.

Personally I would have thought that International Incidents was the nastiest forum towards newbies, but then again it's hard to tell because I don't read the United Nations forum (not being a big fan of the UN and all).

When I ignore someone, it's simply a matter of simply not RPing with them at all and refusing to get involved with them or acknowledging them, I've only done it with maybe two nations ever and it's worked very well for me.

Iuthia refused to consent to a recent RP of mine. It wasn't an ignore, but a simple case of not wanting to RP in the way I was.I suppose thats one way of putting it, I wouldn't have OOC ignored any of the roleplay you did in my thread, as you hadn't done anything to deserve it. The point was more that my nation didn't see any reason to respond to anything except the possibility that our test could be interfered with.

As for the other suggestions via telegram, well I've still got the last telegram, but like I said I'm busy and I'm not particularly interested at that point. Though I'm sure you understood that.

Eitherway, the way we all deal with our RP is, like Der Angst and GMC have already pointed out, down to how we want to deal with it. I like being in control of my own threads though I usually don't close them so I can be surprised. I'll deal OOC with people to help it go the way I want, but I will usually react IC to whatever happens unless it's a blatant god-mod.

So yeah, go Free-form.

Personally I would have thought that International Incidents was the nastiest forum towards newbies, but then again it's hard to tell because I don't read the United Nations forum (not being a big fan of the UN and all).

Nothing wrong in not liking the UN. Personally I wish more critics of the UN would pop in and explain in character why their nations don't like the organization, even if some UN regulars get upset by this. Personally I'm a big fan in NS and in RL of the UN. :)

That in mind, I think the UN forum is very friendly to newbies -- in fact, I think DemonLordEnigma's statements about the UN forum and its players was supposed to be a joke <--- ???.

I think the least "kid gloves" forum that I lurk in would be General. The mods allow a wider range of discussions and tend to encourage players to police themselves. The number of posts is staggering, so it is easy to find daily examples of somebody flying off the handle.

In contrast to General, the UN forum focuses a great deal on technical issues associated with resolution categories and thus has a high moderator presence. Many of the UN forum long timers (1+ years) tend to actually be helpful to newbies.

I quite agree on that, let things happen as they do, I have yet to hear any complaints, exept from one guy who invaded without asking about my military first, of course, he mainly objected to my referring to the Davy Crockett as an anti-tank rocket.

Nothing wrong in not liking the UN. Personally I wish more critics of the UN would pop in and explain in character why their nations don't like the organization, even if some UN regulars get upset by this. Personally I'm a big fan in NS and in RL of the UN. :)

Very simple really; in order to be part of the United Nations, Iuthia would basically have to change laws to fall in line with them and be a member. Seeing as Iuthia is a dictatorship (abeit a benevolent one) it isn't in our interests to tie ourselves down to that organisation.

That aside, however, they lack respect in the United Nations becuase of the large number of laws which enforce one groups views on the rest of the members, such as the legalisation of prostition a while back (which has since been changed if I remember correctly). Eitherway, we're not about to agree to many of the preposals and we don't really respect the way it tells nations how to run their own nation. Thats the IC view of it.[/hijack]

I'd create another thread for that, but I get the impression most United Nations members have heard it enough, so I'm just giving a brief explaination here... if you want to continue with it, just telegram me.

Mikitivity, to be honest, it somewhat was intended as a joke and was intended somewhat as serious. To be honest, we do have one of the highest turnovers of new members. Most don't stay very long past the current resolution at vote, and we still have problems with one-post-wonders. I am, of course, not really helping in that regard. What they don't understand is that it's nothing personal on my part.

As for the mod decision: I expected it.

Iuthia- Understand? I've pretty much been neglecting one of my own RPs due to getting my factbook down. And dealing with the problems of it.