NationStates Jolt Archive

This isn't meant as a complaint - well, at least to a degree, rather it's more of a plea for a more complete explenation on your closing of both threads. Currently, the only explenation that I've received is it has nothing to do with NationStates. As I see it, that might be true, but regardless, neither does hurricane Katrina, nor topics such as, Homosexuals, et cetera. It is to say, the general forum is supposed to be for non-Nation States topics, and frankly, World at War is more of a NationStates topic than other topics out there, that aren't closed.

I suppose I should present to you an argument, and I think I will. World at War, wether you agree or not, has supplied some of the most active role players on International Incidents, including The Silver Sky, Dr. Twist, Guffingford, Kriegograd, Zarbia, and of course, myself, amongst others. Even moderator Tahar Joblis pertained to World at War at some point, as did Euroslavia. It is to say, W@W has a direct link with NationStates, which although really not a "vital" it is a good "school" for some of the more celebrated NSers, so it is to say, it does culture NationStates a bit. Indeed, most of the writing styles I've seen have been exported from World at War.

However, that's not really the important part, since it is true that World at War has nothing to do with International Incidents nor Nation States. However, as I said before, general is for topics that have nothing to do with Nation States, so I don't see how World at War is a direct violation of the General Board's rules.

I would understand if World at War was somehow detrimental to NationStates, but it's not. In fact, it's completely beneficial. Moreover, there are other threads that advertise other forums that aren't closed. So I'm beginning to suspect that there's a bit more to the explenation than "it has nothing to do with Nation States".

There isn't really that much more to say, and I would like to argue with the mods about this - keeping it as a "friendly" argument. I would also like to keep this between W@W members and the mods since others don't really understand either the point of view from W@W members and the point of view of the mods.

Thanks,

Jon

Advertising World At War is just as illegal as advertising Particracy, Dawn of War, Technosphere, LotG, Gmail or anything else. The reason for this is W@W is a game which is not nationstates, and we have had such serious problems with people advertising such things in the past [specific LotG] that it's been all but completely banned. If you want to put a small link in your sig [one that notes the 'interesting role play' is a different game, mind], that should be ok. If you want an entire thread, that's not ok.

So what about those off-site Earths?

An Earth is at least tangentally related to Nationstates, unless it consists solely of people playing out real-life situations as was that case with that WW2 'Earth' that got locked. Long and short; if you're playing your Nation in NS, that's ok. If you're playing a real-life nation in a pretend situation that happens to be named after your NS nation your nation] that's sorta-ok. If your nation is China but you play it as part of the NS world, that's sorta-ok. If you're just creating an Earth so you can play WW2 or China versus America, that's not ok. If an Earth only does offsite RP, that's not ok either.

I have several problems with this ruling. The most ovbious of which is the unfair treatment World at War is experiencing versus any other RP. I understand that you allow Earth OCC signup threads, despite the fact that it strictly states in the International Incidents description that in-character is required. However, under the General forum, I quote, 'For discussion and debate about anything.' Anything. Our Roleplay utilizes NS populations, Economies, and NS nations in general. It provides a location for people to take their NS nations and roleplay in a situation where there is a more solid structure and every war has very solid impacts.

World at War may not fall under International Incides. However, why not in the General Forum? Clearly the topic of World at War falls under the broad category of 'Anything' does it not?

I belive that this ruling is unfair and unwarrrented. A topic should be allowed to maintained in the General forums.

World at War is built around Nationstates, and certainly has a worthy place at the very least in the General Forum. If you rule against World at War, I move that you should inturn lock every topic in the 'General' (Read Anything) topic, as last I checked Katrina was not related to Nationstates.

I have several problems with this ruling. The most ovbious of which is the unfair treatment World at War is experiencing versus any other RP.

No, what you're asking for is special treatment of W@W versus any other online game. We wouldn't allow advertising of Particracy in General, or Technosphere, or LotG, or any other online game. W@W is not another RP, it's another game.

What you are doing is invoking a ridiculous semantic argument based on the word 'anything' appearing in the General forum's description. It should be abundantly clear that 'anything' isn't actually allowed there; you can't flame another player, for example, or post pornography. One of the other rules of that forum is you cannot advertise other online games in it; W@W is another online game, so you cannot advertise it. 'Nothing to do with Nationstates' is why it's not allowed in NS or II, not why it's not allowed in General.

Well, not exactly. W@W is almost entirely based of NationStates. It is to say, a nation on W@W would have to be active on NationStates - some just keep their nations alive, most actually role play on the I.I. or NS forums.

Regardless, what if we were to create some sort of IC thread, that would serve as an IC example of what W@W is about, so it would totally IC, but at the beginning we would put a link to W@W and say if you liked this you could find more like this here. That sort of thing. But most of it would be totally IC.

Or would you shut that down?

The trouble is, as far as I can tell, W@W is a completely seperate RP-universe: events in W@W don't transfer to NS nations and vice versa. So, say, if I were to invade and destroy The Macabees with my army of invincible dragon-zombies and giant nuclear gorillas on NS, it wouldn't affect Germany on W@W and vice versa.

It's this degree of seperation that in my mind makes W@W a seperate game; while you arguably use your NS stats, the nation you use on it isn't the one you use on NS, the world in W@W is the real world rather then the NS world and so on.

I concur with my associate, GMC. You are advertising a separate game, you are not advertising an extension of NationStates. Threads advertising it are therefore not allowed on the NationStates forums.

You may have a link to it in your forum signature, but that's it.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

I completely agree with the mods. I too have an RP forum, completely based on Nationstates. We have links to nationstates, advertise Nationstates, and we'd prefered that members register with their nation's name. We even sell wapons, solely for war RPs.
If W@W would be recognized as a legit NS clone, my forum should be too. Heck, there are thousands of RP forums out there, 100% based on Nationstates.
This modruling is fair and 100% understandable. (I don't say that often ;) )

The trouble is, as far as I can tell, W@W is a completely seperate RP-universe: events in W@W don't transfer to NS nations and vice versa. So, say, if I were to invade and destroy The Macabees with my army of invincible dragon-zombies and giant nuclear gorillas on NS, it wouldn't affect Germany on W@W and vice versa.

It's this degree of seperation that in my mind makes W@W a seperate game; while you arguably use your NS stats, the nation you use on it isn't the one you use on NS, the world in W@W is the real world rather then the NS world and so on.
But surely people who play on an Earth board don't apply what happens in NS to their nation - that wouldn't make sense!
Say I was playing on an Earth board and NS, and you attacked me here . It'd make no sense for that attack to affect my nation on that Earth board unless you were there too and it was part of the RP - after all, it's in a different place.

But surely people who play on an Earth board don't apply what happens in NS to their nation - that wouldn't make sense!
Say I was playing on an Earth board and NS, and you attacked me here . It'd make no sense for that attack to affect my nation on that Earth board unless you were there too and it was part of the RP - after all, it's in a different place.

Most people involved with Earth boards and NS roleplay all of the events taking place on the NS forums, while the boards themselves are used for the organization of the Earth, such as maps, claims, and OOC discussion of anything related to the Earth. From my own experience, events that are roleplayed on the offsite forums and the events roleplayed on the NS boards are all part of the same thing, despite being on different forums. It's still the same earth, and it doesn't matter that they are both on two different forums.

But surely people who play on an Earth board don't apply what happens in NS to their nation - that wouldn't make sense!Of course they do.

People playing on an Earth aren't playing Germany, Australia, China, or whatever it is they own. They're playing their nation who happen to own the land in question.

"Earths" started when people realised that all the real world territory was taken. A group of people wanted some real country, but since it was already claimed, they made 'Earth II' as a way of getting that territory without actually having to do anything. Once the first multiple earth was made, it took off. While I don't much care for them, as a role-player, there's nothing illegal about them, nor are they "separate" from NS any more than the Mars board or the ESUS boards are.

I firmly believe that W@W, even if it doesn't effect one's NationState, benifits both role playing forums respectively. I am a member of W@W, and have been with the series since it's first couple of forums (which was about two years ago I believe). If it weren't for W@W, NationStates would have been something that I would have 'just tried for a week or so', then I probably would have trailed off and gone inactive.

Outside forums like these, which requires a user to use their NationState to participate in the game, help keep users active within NationStates. I think this ruling against advertising of these types of forums is completely redundant, in that, even though some might "technically exceed what is necessary to post in the threads and therefore gets deleted" is pretty excessive and is somewhat pointless. In W@W, there's roughly about 20 or so active users (during W@W's active times), and I think that advertising W@W does not hurt NationStates in anyway, but rather helps another forum, and NationStates itself.

What does it hurt to have, say, an extra four or five new members to be added to W@W's ranks? What makes the growth of a forum that utilizes NationStates as it's fundamental core, hurt NationStates? Why is it necessary to delete the threads that let people know of these types of communities? In W@W, an extra four or five members to be added to it's ranks means a lot to the community, but it does not, in anyway, hurt NationStates. In fact, I believe it actually is benificial to the NationStates community; as the Role Playing in W@W got me more interested in the Role Playing community, and as a result, it has made me a much better writer and role player.

Therefore, I think whether or not the advertising of W@W "technically is grounds for deletion", although false, is completely irrelevant. I really don't see the point of deleting Mac's threads.

I firmly believe that W@W, even if it doesn't effect one's NationState, benifits both role playing forums respectively. I am a member of W@W, and have been with the series since it's first couple of forums (which was about two years ago I believe). If it weren't for W@W, NationStates would have been something that I would have 'just tried for a week or so', then I probably would have trailed off and gone inactive.

Outside forums like these, which requires a user to use their NationState to participate in the game, help keep users active within NationStates. I think this ruling against advertising of these types of forums is completely redundant, in that, even though some might "technically exceed what is necessary to post in the threads and therefore gets deleted" is pretty excessive and is somewhat pointless. In W@W, there's roughly about 20 or so active users (during W@W's active times), and I think that advertising W@W does not hurt NationStates in anyway, but rather helps another forum, and NationStates itself.

What does it hurt to have, say, an extra four or five new members to be added to W@W's ranks? What makes the growth of a forum that utilizes NationStates as it's fundamental core, hurt NationStates? Why is it necessary to delete the threads that let people know of these types of communities? In W@W, an extra four or five members to be added to it's ranks means a lot to the community, but it does not, in anyway, hurt NationStates. In fact, I believe it actually is benificial to the NationStates community; as the Role Playing in W@W got me more interested in the Role Playing community, and as a result, it has made me a much better writer and role player.

Therefore, I think whether or not the advertising of W@W "technically is grounds for deletion", although false, is completely irrelevant. I really don't see the point of deleting Mac's threads.

All of this is completely irrelevant. So this helped you stay on NationStates? Good for you, but we have set rules here, and if you don't want abide by them, that's your choice.

The simple fact of the matter is that they're advertising their site over ours. It's not allowed, case closed. We've had four moderators state why this isn't allowed.

I firmly believe that W@W, even if it doesn't effect one's NationState, benifits both role playing forums respectively.So does AmberMUSH, what's your point?

I think that advertising W@W does not hurt NationStates in anyway, but rather helps another forum, and NationStates itself.It's not a matter of "harm". It's a matter of "don't use NationStates to advertise games that aren't NationStates".

In fact, I believe it actually is benificial to the NationStates community; as the Role Playing in W@W got me more interested in the Role Playing community, and as a result, it has made me a much better writer and role player.Restating your position doesn't increase its truthfulness. The fact still remains that advertising other games is not allowed. Potential improvement to one's role-playing skills has nothing to do with it.