NationStates Jolt Archive

All right, Hack, you wanted a thread put in here to officially discuss the matter, so here you go.

What troubles us the most is the fact that no mod (except you, I grant) has responded to the matter in the II topic. Scolo, the original mod dealing with the incidents in Haven, has told me there has been quite a bit of deliberation on IRC today, which I expected. The decision made was, in our opinion, very carelessly thought out and we're confused as to why the matter was not looked into more thoroughly before this decision was made. Hogsweat says he has told you many times his intentions were benevolent - his entire region agrees and accepts that. He apologised for not telegramming his regionmates first and admitted that was a mistake. But the real mistake here was the fact that a fair and objective decision was not made. Instead, here we are.

We're also troubled by the fact that the decisions made give us all the impression that if we do one thing wrong, be it small or large, we will suffer the brunt of everything, and publicly be forced to take all responsibilities and consequences with that. That isn't right. Moderation is supposed to be neutral leadership, not the inspiration of fear. I sincerely hope you agree with that.

I hope you all, as moderators, have seen and understand the outpouring of anger, frustration, support for Hogsweat et cetera from the collective decisions that were agreed upon. Just look at people's signatures, including mine. We want a fair decision on this. Now is not the time to be locking topics and further stirring the pot - it's only going to make one side angrier. We have got to see some sort of diplomacy on this case, or else NationStates as a whole will suffer.

If you have read the topic started by Hogsweat in International Incidents, you will have seen there have been many suggestions as to handling the situation effectively and neutrally. You may argue that you did it in the best interests in the forum, but had you done so, I feel the collective anger at this decision would have been significantly lower, the issue not so much of a hot potato. Banning other members or locking topics, or even threatening us, only furthers our irritation, frustration and anger.

I've created this thread in the hopes that we can right what has been done here. Hopefully, it will also serve the purpose of taking into account any suggestions that members would like to make regarding the operation of this forum. This is not meant to insult the moderators as a group, or the work they have done in their terms as staff, but this is one issue that has only served to fuel more assertions that the moderators are not thoroughly assessing the situation before making a decision.

There is too much of a general outrage here for this issue not to be taken seriously. If it isn't, we've got a big problem.

- Pacitalia

All right, Hack, you wanted a thread put in here to officially discuss the matter, so here you go.

What troubles us the most is the fact that no mod (except you, I grant) has responded to the matter. The decision made was, in our opinion, very carelessly thought out and we're confused as to why the matter was not looked into more thoroughly before this decision was made. Hogsweat says he has told you many times his intentions were benevolent - his entire region agrees and accepts that. He apologised for not telegramming his regionmates first and admitted that was a mistake. But the real mistake here was the fact that a fair and objective decision was not made. Instead, here we are.

We're also troubled by the fact that the decisions made give us all the impression that if we do one thing wrong, be it small or large, we will suffer the brunt of everything. That isn't right. Moderation is supposed to be neutral leadership, not the inspiration of fear. I sincerely hope you agree with that.

I hope you all, as moderators, have seen and understand the outpouring of anger, frustration, support for Hogsweat et cetera from the collective decisions that were agreed upon. Just look at people's signatures, including mine. We want a fair decision on this. Now is not the time to be locking topics and further stirring the pot - it's only going to make one side angrier. We have got to see some sort of diplomacy on this case, or else NationStates as a whole will suffer.

If you have read the topic started by Hogsweat in International Incidents, you will have seen there have been many suggestions as to handling the situation effectively and neutrally. You may argue that you did it in the best interests in the forum, but had you done so, I feel the collective anger at this decision would have been significantly lower, the issue not so much of a hot potato. Banning other members or locking topics, or even threatening us, only furthers our irritation, frustration and anger.

I've created this thread in the hopes that we can right what has been done here. Hopefully, it will also serve the purpose of taking into account any suggestions that members would like to make regarding the operation of this forum. This is not meant to insult the moderators as a group, or the work they have done in their terms as staff, but this is one issue that has only served to fuel more assertions that the moderators are not thoroughly assessing the situation before making a decision.

There is too much of a general outrage here for this issue not to be taken seriously. If it isn't, we've got a big problem.

- Pacitalia

I really couldn't agree more, or have put it more eloquently. This issue must be made right. Please, let us discuss this and try and solve this peacefully.

Okay, what I'm confused and perplexed is this:


Region Griefing: Region Griefing is the malicious cousin of "region crashing". Where "crashing" involves moving several nations into a region at once and taking over the delegate-ship, Region Griefing is used to describe the practice of illegally ejecting too many members of a region after invading it. Basically the same as Griefing, only it's a bunch of nations (the region crashers) doing the griefing. Report this using the Getting Help Page. More detail on invasion rules and infractions may be found in the Region invasion FAQ.

Granted, rules are rules, but it can also be used inversely to support Hogsweat's position. How can Hogsweat grief, on the following conditions:

a) He isn't invading any region;
b) He is the UN Delegate, endorsed by the actual natives of the region;
c) His intention to eject all the nations from the region (not the ejecting part itself, but the intent to make himself the founder) is already endorsed by the natives, and;
d) He isn't even a region crasher. He's a roleplayer.

So why so, did the mods delete Hogsweat? I'm really confused by this. How can he grief against his own region? Or for the matter, how was him even a griefer?

I agree, but it is also possible that we are missing some information for whatever reason. If you, the mods, have anything that was not posted in the II forum, for whatever reason, that validates your decision please post it, as this will help the issue. However, if nothing was overlooked, please revive Hogsweat.

We're also troubled by the fact that the decisions made give us all the impression that if we do one thing wrong, be it small or large, we will suffer the brunt of everything, and publicly be forced to take all responsibilities and consequences with that. That isn't right. Moderation is supposed to be neutral leadership, not the inspiration of fear. I sincerely hope you agree with that.

While I agree with everything stated therein, I must totally be at one with this statement. I can say with honesty that I am afraid of a mod or mods that would go crazy and initiate sentences that would make no sense. How am I to comfort this thought, when I have seen the changes from the Old Mods to the new? I have been on NS for quite some time, admittedly I have been gone for some time also. But the fact that I remember what was done in the past, and done now, does give a right to express this concern.

I do not say that I am blamming anyone, or disagree with moderation choices. Rather, I say I am afraid. I don't want my Nation to be deleted like Hogsweat's was, I have worked too long and hard on it like he did. What comfort do I have now from these events? What, I must ask, what?

In all honesty, I was banned once as Nodea Rudav (maybe Anagonia). Ever since that point, I have strived to praise and support and respect the Moderation staff, Sometimes even through humor as shown in the Forum 7 incident involing Mod Worship (lol). But never have I been afraid!

I would have never thought in a thousand years that I would be afraid of moderation, of the people I spent a friendly chat, of the people I respected. It has, sadly, come to that point. What must I do? What can calm this? Please, I ask of you, tell me.

-Thank You.

So why so, did the mods delete Hogsweat? I'm really confused by this. How can he grief against his own region? Or for the matter, how was him even a griefer?
What's especially confusing is that I've seen Founders do far worse than that and get defended by the moderators, while even native Delegates with the consent of their co-regionites get deleted. I was in a region where I was ejected by the founder on suspicion. He ejected about 50 people. Half of them were inactive, the rest were suspected of being invaders. Not that they were; I wasn't, for example. One of those was the UN Delegate, because he felt that she was threatening his power, even though he had regional controls turned off.

Now, ejecting a half-inactive region that has previously consented to this policy definitely doesn't seem anywhere near as problematic as the situation described above, so I'm just very confused.

Can't we have some kind of equality? Either everyone who griefs gets deleted, or nobody does. Why allow founders and Pacific delegates to grief to sometimes massive extents (Francos Spain comes to mind), but not allow native delegates to grief if the rest of the region has already consented? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

<snip> I am afraid of a mod or mods

<snip>I am afraid.

That is not how we should view the moderators. Now that that has happened, though, we should think that the mods would strive to correct that.

Also, I would also like to throw out into the open Pacitalia's previous post in the other thread:

OOC: I've mentioned this quite a bit and I think maybe the topic should be explored more now that we're having so many problems in general with the decisions of the moderators.

Either

A) We have NS-wide elections for moderators. No appointments. Just nominations, and then elections.

B) We have a sort of council, an ethics commission, if you will, to monitor the actions of the mods. A lot of the decisions they make are correct, but for the ones that are not, such as this case, they need to be looked at by another group of people who are not moderators and can view the situation with a neutral point of view and make a fair and objective opinion on the situation.


I feel that if we don't do one of these two things, NS will never be able to recover.

Should this situation be cleaned up, I implore the mods to at least consider this.

Okay, first and foremost, I didn't delete Hogsweat. By the time I woke up for work, the decision had been made. I'm trying to mitigate the fallout here, as well as respond to a few misconceptions that people seem to have.

We're also troubled by the fact that the decisions made give us all the impression that if we do one thing wrong, be it small or large, we will suffer the brunt of everything, and publicly be forced to take all responsibilities and consequences with that. That isn't right. Moderation is supposed to be neutral leadership, not the inspiration of fear. I sincerely hope you agree with that.Moderation is about the enforcement of rules. Certain rules have certain punishments.

Spamming in the forums is treated much more leniantly than, say, posting pornography. The former gets you warned, the latter gets you deleted. Griefing is an instant-delete offence. Nothing new there; this has been the case since griefing started. Hyperbole about Mods waiting in the bushes with the Sniper Rifle of DEAT doesn't help anything.

So why so, did the mods delete Hogsweat? I'm really confused by this. How can he grief against his own region? Or for the matter, how was him even a griefer?Ejecting large numbers of natives to refound a region is griefing. This also isn't a new rule. Regional refounding is a difficult task, and there are certain procedures that must be followed. The rules apply to all players. Roleplayers are not magically exempt from them.

What's especially confusing is that I've seen Founders do far worse than that and get defended by the moderatorsFounders are not Delegates. They are bound by a different ruleset than Delegates. Much like the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff follows different rules than Bob, The New Recruit in Bootcamp.

Founders, in effect, own the region. They can do pretty much whatever they want, because it's their region. This isn't new either.

Can't we have some kind of equality? Either everyone who griefs gets deleted, or nobody does. Why allow founders and Pacific delegates to grief to sometimes massive extents (Francos Spain comes to mind), but not allow native delegates to grief if the rest of the region has already consented? It just doesn't make any sense to me.This is my take on that issue: The founder owns a region. It belongs to them. Your rights are protected insofar that if the founder is dead, no one can take up similar dictatorial powers without getting punished, since they did not get the position on a basis of ownership, but were elected.

That said, I had the weirdest feelings of déjà vu when I read the OP...:confused:

I may not have been on good IC terms with Hogsweat, or any OOC terms, but Im highly angered and saddened by this. And the worst part is, I can name at least 3 other instances where the same thing has happened. I'm slightly afraid to say it but, the mods are growing more...I dont know how to say it, corrupt. A friend of mine had his nation and all his puppets deleted, for something he had no relation with at all. And I asked why and Fris basically told me to screw off. Another friend of mine, and a puppet of mine, were blatantly framed by the same guy; yet the mods were quick to delete with no proof, and quick to claim proof. Pacitalia phrased it better than I could have ever thought: "Moderation is supposed to be neutral leadership, not the inspiration of fear".

The guy behind Borman

A few notes:

This was not Hogsweat's first offense. While we rarely delete nations after a single offense, we commonly do so after two. (Records are permanent)
We try to keep the "The One-Stop Rules Shop" up to date and accurate, but are not always successful. As it says at the very top, those rules are not set in stone.
We don't care what "In game" catagory you feel your nation belongs to. As far as we're concerned, you're a "nation". You're not an "invader" or a "defender" (which we don't differentiate from "invader" at all), or a "roleplayer". So, any claims that rules apply differently or don't apply because you are a "roleplayer" are wrong and a waste of time.
The deletion will stand.
I'm reviewing the logs to see whether this could have been handled better. This does not mean that I disagree with the decision though.

Mass ejection of natives is griefing. Period. Intents aside - which frankly, can't be judged, and are subjective.

Did Hogsweat tg all the nations in the region explaining his intent?

Did he wait for their responses?

Did he bother to ask here in Moderation what would happen if he did what he did?

Did he ask everyone to voluntarily leave (as has been instructed to people asking about refounding regions here SEVERAL times over the years) to a temporary region so it could be refounded? Even if there were just a few that could have been, from all I've seen, safely removed if they were inactive, so long as they were given the new pass for the re-established one?

If not, I'm afraid he doesn't have a leg to stand on - good intentions and all the emotional upheaval aside.

They have rules for a reason. They apply to all of us. If a person has not done everything in their power to solve things correctly themselves, they really don't have room to complain when the axe drops.

I'm sorry folks, but it doesn't hold. It's a damn shame, yes, and I'm sure he meant well, but the fact is he broke the rules, and now has to deal with the consequences. And I can't say as I'm impressed with some of the crap accusations and gripes that are getting spewed on account.

Please see here (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm) for an illustration of just why so many of your arguments don't fly. See particularly "Argument from Ignorance", "Appeal to Pity", "Popularity", "Slothful Induction", and "Attacking the Person" among others if you need more clarification.

Folks, from what I've seen, it's all fine and well when it's someone you don't like that these things happen to - I've seen the celebrations and gloating - but heaven forfend when it's someone you do care for.

Hypocrisy - it's never pretty.

And Hoggy, while I'm sorry you got deleted, afraid I can see ample ways you could have avoided it if you'd have taken a moment and thought before you acted.

Best of luck.

Moderation is about the enforcement of rules. Certain rules have certain punishments.

Mods have a responsibility to be objective and fair in their decision-making. That has not happened here.

Griefing is an instant-delete offence. Nothing new there; this has been the case since griefing started. Hyperbole about Mods waiting in the bushes with the Sniper Rifle of DEAT doesn't help anything.

Let's not jump to conclusions about your behaviour, Hack. I'll clarify again - it's that people are afraid of you guys, in general. They're not just scared of being deated, but just plain scared. And that's not good. Can you honestly say you're happy to see this view of yourself and your fellow moderators?

Ejecting large numbers of natives to refound a region is griefing. This also isn't a new rule. Regional refounding is a difficult task, and there are certain procedures that must be followed. The rules apply to all players. Roleplayers are not magically exempt from them.

Where did anyone say Hogsweat was exempt? Again, I bring up the point - Hogsweat has the support of his regionmates to do it - therefore, it cannot be considered griefing, whether in Haven, or outside.

A few notes:

This was not Hogsweat's first offense. While we rarely delete nations after a single offense, we commonly do so after two. (Records are permanent)
We try to keep the "The One-Stop Rules Shop" up to date and accurate, but are not always successful. As it says at the very top, those rules are not set in stone.
We don't care what "In game" catagory you feel your nation belongs to. As far as we're concerned, you're a "nation". You're not an "invader" or a "defender" (which we don't differentiate from "invader" at all), or a "roleplayer". So, any claims that rules apply differently or don't apply because you are a "roleplayer" are wrong and a waste of time.
The deletion will stand.
I'm reviewing the logs to see whether this could have been handled better. This does not mean that I disagree with the decision though.


This is the type of response I'd like to see from the moderators. Thanks, Salusa.

Mass ejection of natives is griefing. Period. Intents aside - which frankly, can't be judged, and are subjective.

Did Hogsweat tg all the nations in the region explaining his intent?

Did he wait for their responses?

Did he bother to ask here in Moderation what would happen if he did what he did?

Did he ask everyone to voluntarily leave (as has been instructed to people asking about refounding regions here SEVERAL times over the years) to a temporary region so it could be refounded? Even if there were just a few that could have been, from all I've seen, safely removed if they were inactive, so long as they were given the new pass for the re-established one?

You're right on one thing, and one thing only - the fact that Hogsweat acted before thinking. But, as I said, he has admitted, very explicitly, that he made a mistake by not telegramming his regionmates. And it was a genuine remorse.

Don't misjudge us - we're not saying the rules should be flouted. I, however, am saying, the rule in this case was misused, and that's not right.

We try to keep the "The One-Stop Rules Shop" up to date and accurate, but are not always successful. As it says at the very top, those rules are not set in stone.

So, and please correct me if I am wrong, if I understand what you just said we (NationStates Players) are held to rules that may not be published yet are still fully enforceable?

This isn't so much about the current "situation" as it about this in general.

Again, I bring up the point - Hogsweat has the support of his regionmates to do it - therefore, it cannot be considered griefing, whether in Haven, or outside.
This is the cruz of your argument, and the least effective one. If everyone agreed, why didn't they click the buttons to leave?. That's all you need to do for a voluntary refounding. It's been discussed in dozens of threads, in Moderation and elsewhere.

We don't have the luxury of determining the intent of all the regionmates, nor do we have the time to poll them all and ask whether they agree. It's griefing because that's how we define it in two years of mod precedent. The fact that it didn't make the rules sticky is unfortunate, and is even now under discussion in modspace, but that doesn't alter the fact that we've been enforcing this rule for YEARS.

Pac, everyone who's had a judgement against them has had 'genuine remorse'.

It's no excuse. Appeal to Pity, sorry, doesn't fly. He made a bad choice, he's been deleted on account - just like everyone else who's ever made that bad choice. So I fail to see the 'injustice' or 'bias' here.

They've handled it the same way they've handled the rest. It's his own fault for not handling the situation correctly - which you just pointed out, thanks.

Choice and accountability, people. Get some.

This is the cruz of your argument, and the least effective one.

No, it's not the crux of my argument. The crux of my argument is that the moderators made an incorrect decision, and that the outrage, until now, is being somewhat ignored. The frustration over the lack of response from a majority of the moderation staff - because, believe me, we want to hear what you have to say - is also a problem for me.

The fact that it didn't make the rules sticky is unfortunate.

You're quite right - why isn't it in the Rules Sticky?

Choice and accountability, people. Get some.

The same accountability that was used in making the decision to delete Hogsweat? Right.

As far as i can tell, we can be deleted without explanation by moderators on some made up charge concerning a rule that we have not been made aware of, thats not right

Face it, Pac. You're mad because you like Hogsweat's player. You already admitted he went about it the wrong way, and didn't follow correct proceedure.

That IS the entire point, and the mods DID act with the same accountability in mind I've seen them use with these cases time, and time again.

Your argument holds no water. Deal. If you folks can't see that, there's no helping you.

I'm done.

So, and please correct me if I am wrong, if I understand what you just said we (NationStates Players) are held to rules that may not be published yet are still fully enforceable?

This isn't so much about the current "situation" as it about this in general.
Hate to rain on your parade, man, but you always have been. That's been the entire point of the Moderation forum--"Why did this happen?" "It happened because of this."

Then later... "Who said this was bad?" "<lots of links to previous precedent>" "Oh."

This has been the normal state of affairs since moderation started. The fact that we weren't asked beyond Allanea popping into #themodcave and asking "Is anyone in?" doesn't help anything. None of us really wanted this to work out this way, but the simple fact of the matter is that delegate mass ejection is one of our very few Not Dones that I have never, ever seen leniency on for any reason. Ignorance has not worked as a defense as of yet, and being popular never will.

Don't misjudge us - we're not saying the rules should be flouted. I, however, am saying, the rule in this case was misused, and that's not right.

With that, I refer the mods to my signature. The way I see it, our arguements are being used against us and reletively ignored.

Being afraid of the mods is in no way right either. When I have some sort of problem, I hesitate to ask the mods about it, for fear of being reprimanded for something that I did wrong, the way I asked the question, or for not instantly seeing the solution for something. I have also seen mods outright lock a thread for something that the poster evidently had no knowlege of, with no explanation, mind you; and that is the same as beating a dog on the snout with a wet newspaper. Actions like that make members steer clear of all mods, no matter whether they're benevolent or belligerent.

Face it, Pac. You're mad because you like Hogsweat's player. You already admitted he went about it the wrong way, and didn't follow correct procedure.

If sticking up for my friends is wrong, then I'd prefer not to be right. Unfortunately, that's not the only reason I'm fighting the battle here - the other half is to hold you to account for your actions, especially if you made an incorrect one.

We don't have the luxury of determining the intent of all the regionmates, nor do we have the time to poll them all and ask whether they agree.

Just saw this - so you're saying you don't fully determine the situation before acting?

I'm reviewing the logs to see whether this could have been handled better. This does not mean that I disagree with the decision though.

The situation was handled properly.

Allow me to chime in here.

As far as i can tell, we can be deleted without explanation by moderators on some made up charge concerning a rule that we have not been made aware of, thats not right

This is exactly what I am currently concerned with. This is exactly why I am involved in this matter. I have no assurance of anything, anymore. The only known Mod that I believe I can trust is Sulsa, and some of the older mods that I know. This is why I'm afraid.

As far as i can tell, we can be deleted without explanation by moderators on some made up charge concerning a rule that we have not been made aware of, thats not rightDuck in the pond principle:
All you see is the duck floating seemingly effortlessly accross the surface. But underneath, those legs are churning.
I've been on camp staff before, and one indicator of having a good staff was not letting the campers see what went on in staff. It's a need to know basis, and in this case, we don't necessarily need to know how the mods make their decisions, though I've been getting the impression that there are serious discussions and joint rulings on important decisions.

Hate to rain on your parade, man, but you always have been.

I seriously hope that wasn't referring to Hamptonshire as being wrong, because the way you've worded it makes it look genuinely like a flame. If it's not intended to be that way, then I apologise for this assertion.

Face it, Pac. You're mad because you like Hogsweat's player.

One more thing about this - I see the loyalty and the teamwork between the mods, and it's not hard to notice that you stick up for each other in times like these, but that would mean that in effect, you are making the assertion that the forum members aren't allowed to do the same.

The situation was handled properly.

Thanks Sulsa, I'm satisfied now. :D

Allow me to leave and be gone.

EDIT:

Though I must admit, I somehow feel something deeper went on here. But I trust Sulsa, and if he say's everythings done right, then I'm satisfied.

IJust saw this - so you're saying you don't fully determine the situation before acting?
In the thirteen minutes between my last post and this one, I handled 14 tasks on the tasklist, participated in two conversations about this issue in modspace, and would like to think seriusly about having some dinner. Are you proposing that I take a month to query every inactive player before making any decision about a griefing? I can assure you that nothing would ever get done in that case.

Frankly I’m quite surprised, for the record id like to say I’m not siding with any one .

But hog seeing as he had several violations before deserved it more or less, but this is a Grey area many people are saying the mods are abusing there power and corruption is at hand, of course people on the mod team will Deny it .

Now I can make hundreds of theories on why people are close to them so they can get back scratches but I wont because those are unfounded, there is no way to know if the mods have abused there power in this case. I for one think this is threading dangerously close to certain Grey areas, one possible solution is let the players read up on the decision possesses on how mod stuff is carried out.

In the thirteen minutes between my last post and this one, I handled 14 tasks on the tasklist, participated in two conversations about this issue in modspace, and would like to think seriusly about having some dinner. Are you proposing that I take a month to query every inactive player before making any decision about a griefing? I can assure you that nothing would ever get done in that case.

No, I'm not. What I'm proposing is that you take the time to consider the serious issues. Apparently, that didn't happen here.

But hog seeing as he had several violations before deserved it more or less,
Several violations... What violations? I invite you to list them.

hreading dangerously close to certain Grey areas
Again, what is this 'Grey area'?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacitalia
IJust saw this - so you're saying you don't fully determine the situation before acting?

In the thirteen minutes between my last post and this one, I handled 14 tasks on the tasklist, participated in two conversations about this issue in modspace, and would like to think seriusly about having some dinner. Are you proposing that I take a month to query every inactive player before making any decision about a griefing? I can assure you that nothing would ever get done in that case.

IF you cant ahndle it now, take on more mods,
AND can someone tell me whats going on with the forum

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9800537&postcount=11
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9800616&postcount=26

In the thirteen minutes between my last post and this one, I handled 14 tasks on the tasklist, participated in two conversations about this issue in modspace, and would like to think seriusly about having some dinner.Man, You guys need more than just an Avatar for your work.

as for the Griefing charge, I read it was his/her second offense? so [s]he did it before? is that right?

Common sense and Common Courtisy dictate you let people know and give them time to Leave the region voluntarily. No exscuses.

One more thing about this - I see the loyalty and the teamwork between the mods, and it's not hard to notice that you stick up for each other in times like these, but that would mean that in effect, you are making the assertion that the forum members aren't allowed to do the same.

Um, Pac? Check my name. And then whap yourself with a big clue-by-four.

I'm not a mod. Never was. Never will be. Forum player, just like you.

Good to know you have a good grip on the facts there, boyo. ;)

EDIT: And for the record - read back. Your claims of it not having been handled correctly were answered by Salusa, who has reviewed the situation. Or is your next claim going to be that he's biased and incorrect as well?

I for one think this is threading dangerously close to certain Grey areas, one possible solution is let the players read up on the decision possesses on how mod stuff is carried out.

No, TFU. The best solution is to let the players think about how they would like these forums to be run, and what rules they would like to see in place - why would you not want some input on how this place is run? Moderators take input all the time about other issues and this should be no different.

Several violations... What violations? I invite you to list them.


Again, what is this 'Grey area'?


When I say Grey area I mean its not been fully explored, thus we don’t know what to expect further more neither side has an impartiality in this.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9800537&postcount=11

Um, Pac? Check my name. And then whap yourself with a big clue-by-four.

Let's not degrade into general insults, please. I know quite well you're not a mod, thank you very much, and never said you were one. I said you are supporting the mod's position and making assertions that would fit well with the current point of view of the moderating staff. It doesn't mean you don't have the prerogative to act or think as one, now, does it?

Thanks for the wink - I'm glad your argument wasn't serious.

No, TFU. The best solution is to let the players think about how they would like these forums to be run, and what rules they would like to see in place - why would you not want some input on how this place is run? Moderators take input all the time about other issues and this should be no different.


Theirs an issue with that, see if cliques from nothing will be done impartially at all, it will be if I scratch your back you’ll scratch mine. That’s the sort of stuff we want to avoid.

No, TFU. The best solution is to let the players think about how they would like these forums to be run, and what rules they would like to see in place - why would you not want some input on how this place is run? Moderators take input all the time about other issues and this should be no different.Doesn't NationStates belong to Max Barry?

Okay I like hoggy, however I received no TG, and was given no warning with the act in question being carried out quickly and WITHOUT referring to the majority of the Haven populace and was seemingly spurred on by a few posts on the regional board. Now though the refounding was suggested for some time before this and regional consensus by those active and was seemingly growing as far as I can see it was far from complete. The end result was that I and others found on logged in they were in the rejected realms without warning. While I do feel the decision was very harsh on hoggy those are the facts of the thing.

No, TFU. The best solution is to let the players think about how they would like these forums to be run, and what rules they would like to see in place - why would you not want some input on how this place is run? Moderators take input all the time about other issues and this should be no different.and the mods have taken your imput and SalusaSeconds has reviewed the decisions. The Mods have access to information that we lowly players don't have. thus the Mods see the bigger picture and can react accordingly.

I know I chaffed at it to, but I realized this and by keeping it civil, the mods do explain their actions when asked.

Doesn't NationStates belong to Max Barry?

That's exactly why I said "would like" and not "want".

I seriously hope that wasn't referring to Hamptonshire as being wrong, because the way you've worded it makes it look genuinely like a flame. If it's not intended to be that way, then I apologise for this assertion.
Start apologizing then.

"So we're responsible for precedent that may not have gotten onto the stickies?"

"Sorry to rain on your parade, but you always have been."

Really. You wonder why we get annoyed with you when you throw out baseless accusations and hope that a tiny half-apology at the end in case you're wrong makes us feel better?

Stop grasping for straws. I like Hogsweat and I didn't like deleting him (yeah, I did it) but after getting second opinions like we are wont to do, we came to the conclusion that we've never offered leniency on that matter before and doing so now just because we like the guy would be the bias everyone is so afraid of.

Let me put that out there again:

I deleted someone that I didn't want to because he broke the rules and not doing so would have been acting out of bias. Yes, I wanted to cut an internet buddy some slack. Unfortunately, I have this completely obnoxious and worthless unpaid job to do that I stick to because I don't like giving up and the second opinions confirmed that we don't give quarter on this sort of thing.

Hell, I actually did act in bias by giving him warning and the opportunity to save telegrams and his dossier and the like. We have never extended that tiny little thing to anyone else before. Then questions from mods who missed the action popping up later were on the level of "why'd was that even offered?" And it's a good question, too.

So, Pactalia, it is with "all due respect" (what a useless phrase) that I ask you to take your crusade elsewhere. We've got your input, had your input, and will continue to get your input and belaboring the same point over and over will do no one any good. People didn't like squatters, so delegates got the ability to kickban. People didn't like delegates kickbanning everyone so, hey, thus appeared a definition of griefing that applies to everyone whether they play the invasion game or not because that's the only way to keep it fair. People don't like us deleting (particular) delegates for kickbanning everyone...

Well, people don't like us for everything we do. Some things we just gotta suck up.

EDIT: -too tired of it...-

Hm. After giving this some time and thought, I guess I can see both sides of the arguement, and even agree on points from both. However, I find it to be an overwhelming fact that it was just something he did which was against the rules, and in the meantime rules are rules, period. Whilst we can argue about great intentions, the best of concerns in Hoggie's mind when it comes down to what he did; I can still see from the Moderation point of view that there just isnt enough time to review every single case on the basis of that: intentions. In the meantime, I have failed to see that Hogsweat did indeed have the complete support of his regional-mates; Zepplin Manufacturers is one here quite obviously. And I would guarentee that there would be one, two, three, whatever more. So did he have the complete support of his region? Perhaps the core amount of members, perhaps; but I cannot see that the entire of them agreed and was notified.

It's unfortunate that Hoggie had to be deleted over this, but as it's always been; first comes action, then concequence. And dont go crying over how popular, how good-hearted, how whatever Hoggie was to not deserve it. Think of the plenty of said people who get killed and not having done anything wrong. Those are the real people we should be crying injustice for. Not someone, a friend who made a mistake and had to suffer the concequences. (Not even very serious at that, in the scheme of life in general). In the meantime what he did was quite plain and simple, in my opinion.

Hogsweat applied an actionable offense, and justice was served.

Sometimes concequences suck, but there's little we can do about that.

I will most likely never be content on this issue, but I will not further debate it. The mods will not offer sway, so my arguments follow dust in the wind.

Start apologizing then.

Really. You wonder why we get annoyed with you when you throw out baseless accusations and hope that a tiny half-apology at the end in case you're wrong makes us feel better?

Not at all. I just don't like to accuse people of thinking or doing things when they didn't actually do this. I personally am not out to see whether the mods feel better or worse or something else, again, my argument here is to see whether the mods can actually say they're being accountable and actually be accountable.

Stop grasping for straws.

I'm not simple. I'm just defending my position, as are you.

So, Pactalia, it is with "all due respect" (what a useless phrase) that I ask you to take your crusade elsewhere. We've got your input, had your input, and will continue to get your input and belaboring the same point over and over will do no one any good.

Don't worry, I know you don't respect me. As I said, let's put some of the suggestions that have been said into action, instead of lowering ourselves to petty bickering. It's honestly a waste of energy to fight like that.

Well, people don't like us for everything we do. Some things we just gotta suck up.

Don't overreact. As I have said in this topic many times - unfortunate to see it's been ignored now by another moderator - I still think you do your jobs reasonably well. In this case, however, I think the wrong decision has been made.

Folks, from what I've seen, it's all fine and well when it's someone you don't like that these things happen to - I've seen the celebrations and gloating - but heaven forfend when it's someone you do care for.

Just to point out, I think I've said it. Hogsweat and I were on probably bad terms. We were IC enemies and I dont remember much OOC talk with him excpet some argument, I wouldnt exactly consider him "Someone I care for". But I disagree with him having been deleated, and its not the first time that Ive seen a nation gone deat that shouldn't have been.

And congrats at the blatant shot at the truth I was telling.

mods? was he guilty of griefing before his deat? some posts back hinted at this.

I'll be back later - supper time. (I'm on Pacific Time)

mods? was he guilty of griefing before his deat? some posts back hinted at this.

I think it was a different offense.

Because hogsweat is famous and paramount people step up to defend him even when he clearly did some thing wrong, but what about a newb, take a random newb say he did the same offenses. No one would care or defend him frankly I find some thing wrong with that.. we cant let good rpers and such be above the law.

Just to point out, I think I've said it. Hogsweat and I were on probably bad terms. We were IC enemies and I dont remember much OOC talk with him excpet some argument, I wouldnt exactly consider him "Someone I care for". But I disagree with him having been deleated, and its not the first time that Ive seen a nation gone deat that shouldn't have been.

And congrats at the blatant shot at the truth I was telling.

So wait. Let me try and understand this. You believe he should have been deleted. Ok. He was deleted for mass ejecting every nation in Haven, in which he didn't inform everyone of the ejection through telegram (which makes it a bit worse), and in fact, not all of the nations in Haven had the chance at knowing this was going to happen. In Zepplin's case, he logged in to see his nation in the Rejected Realms. So the fact of the matter is the entire region didn't agree to it before it happened. Yes, it was discussed before, but carrying it out today was not. This is a clear cut case of griefing. I do understand why others don't like it, because they are his friends, but making an exception here for Hogsweat would prove to be even worse, seeing as many others have been deleted, most notably the gameplayers, in committing the same action. Like it or not, he broke the rules, he got punished. Being a roleplayer or a gameplayer makes no difference. You're both subject to the rules.

Alrighty... I really, really disagree with Hogsweat's deletion. To be honest, this offense did not warrant a deletion. Maybe a rather harsh warning, but definitely not a deletion. After all what were Hoggy's previous offenses? Probably something minor, like spamming, or getting in a too heated argument in General, definitely not something that can count as "multiple offenses." Besides it's not like Hogsweat is a regular nuisance or frequently causes problems for the mods (like say... Decisive Action). So please, please consider Hogsweat's more or less exemplary record and reverse his deletion.

I think it was a different offense.
Bolding mine
A few notes:

This was not Hogsweat's first offense. While we rarely delete nations after a single offense, we commonly do so after two. (Records are permanent)
We try to keep the "The One-Stop Rules Shop" up to date and accurate, but are not always successful. As it says at the very top, those rules are not set in stone.
We don't care what "In game" catagory you feel your nation belongs to. As far as we're concerned, you're a "nation". You're not an "invader" or a "defender" (which we don't differentiate from "invader" at all), or a "roleplayer". So, any claims that rules apply differently or don't apply because you are a "roleplayer" are wrong and a waste of time.
The deletion will stand.
I'm reviewing the logs to see whether this could have been handled better. This does not mean that I disagree with the decision though.

Start apologizing then.

"So we're responsible for precedent that may not have gotten onto the stickies?"

"Sorry to rain on your parade, but you always have been."

Really. You wonder why we get annoyed with you when you throw out baseless accusations and hope that a tiny half-apology at the end in case you're wrong makes us feel better?

Stop grasping for straws. I like Hogsweat and I didn't like deleting him (yeah, I did it) but after getting second opinions like we are wont to do, we came to the conclusion that we've never offered leniency on that matter before and doing so now just because we like the guy would be the bias everyone is so afraid of.

Let me put that out there again:

I deleted someone that I didn't want to because he broke the rules and not doing so would have been acting out of bias. Yes, I wanted to cut an internet buddy some slack. Unfortunately, I have this completely obnoxious and worthless unpaid job to do that I stick to because I don't like giving up and the second opinions confirmed that we don't give quarter on this sort of thing.

Hell, I actually did act in bias by giving him warning and the opportunity to save telegrams and his dossier and the like. We have never extended that tiny little thing to anyone else before. Then questions from mods who missed the action popping up later were on the level of "why'd was that even offered?" And it's a good question, too.

So, Pactalia, it is with "all due respect" (what a useless phrase) that I ask you to take your crusade elsewhere. We've got your input, had your input, and will continue to get your input and belaboring the same point over and over will do no one any good. People didn't like squatters, so delegates got the ability to kickban. People didn't like delegates kickbanning everyone so, hey, thus appeared a definition of griefing that applies to everyone whether they play the invasion game or not because that's the only way to keep it fair. People don't like us deleting (particular) delegates for kickbanning everyone...

Well, people don't like us for everything we do. Some things we just gotta suck up.and this one shows he was also warned.
(my opinion and respect of you, Scolopendra (corrected: sorry:p ) went up because of what you tried to do.)

and this is why I am asking. was the previous offense for Griefing?

and this is why I am asking. was the previous offense for Griefing?

Irrelevant. With the sole exception of innapropriate UN proposals (and not always then either) we do not catagorize warnings. A previous warning is a previous warning, is a previous warning.

(I'd like to amend my earlier post as well. While we rarely delete after a single offense, clearing a region for refounding is one where we usually do so.)

Alrighty... I really, really disagree with Hogsweat's deletion. To be honest, this offense did not warrant a deletion. Maybe a rather harsh warning, but definitely not a deletion. After all what were Hoggy's previous offenses? Probably something minor, like spamming, or getting in a too heated argument in General, definitely not something that can count as "multiple offenses." Besides it's not like Hogsweat is a regular nuisance or frequently causes problems for the mods (like say... Decisive Action). So please, please consider Hogsweat's more or less exemplary record and reverse his deletion.

And who are you to tell us how we should punish him? For quite a long time now, a griefing such as this has almost always lead to a deletion. Making an exception here wouldn't make any sense, despite the fact that Hogsweat is more 'popular' among everyone here.

I wouldn't assume things about his previous offense. Doing so isn't the best case for an argument against his deletion, seeing as you don't know his previous offense in the first place.

I think we are all overlooking one thing.

As I understand it, Hoggy has not been IP-banned (someone correct me if I'm wrong on this). This means that the player behind Hogsweat is perfectly able to create a new nation (maybe Hogsweat II or H0gsweat or New Hogsweat or similar) and can resume forum actions. The player has been castigated, and programmes continue as normal.

It is a shame that Hoggy was DEATed, but alas even killing by accident is manslaughter, to analogise.

EDIT: See note.

Irrelevant. With the sole exception of innapropriate UN proposals (and not always then either) we do not catagorize warnings. A previous warning is a previous warning, is a previous warning.

(I'd like to amend my earlier post as well. While we rarely delete after a single offense, clearing a region for refounding is one where we usually do so.)ahhh... thanks for the clarification.

And who are you to tell us how we should punish him?

He is a member of the forum you're serving as moderator. Don't get into chain-of-command arguments, please.

As I understand it, Hoggy has not been IP-banned (someone correct me if I'm wrong on this). This means that the player behind Hogsweat is perfectly able to create a new nationCorrect.

Not at all. I just don't like to accuse people of thinking or doing things when they didn't actually do this. I personally am not out to see whether the mods feel better or worse or something else, again, my argument here is to see whether the mods can actually say they're being accountable and actually be accountable.
Hey, guess what: we had a tough call to make and we made it. A call we didn't want to make and we made it. That's accountability; not happening to kow-tow if one of our decisions just happens to meet the disagreement of a particular person.

We're accountable to admin. Admin's said this was handled appropriately. Accountability has been appeased.

Don't worry, I know you don't respect me. As I said, let's put some of the suggestions that have been said into action, instead of lowering ourselves to petty bickering. It's honestly a waste of energy to fight like that.And what suggestions would those be? Leniency? Sadly, not going to happen because that's how the rules go. Democratic moderation? Whatever happened to Sandpit's experiment on that... oh, yes, completely failed.

So, no. Let's not put the suggestions into action because, unfortunate as it may be, we didn't screw it up.

Don't overreact. As I have said in this topic many times - unfortunate to see it's been ignored now by another moderator - I still think you do your jobs reasonably well. In this case, however, I think the wrong decision has been made.Two words: too bad. I really am sorry, but it comes down to that.

We have some things we have to suck up. Likewise, so do you.

He is a member of the forum you're serving as moderator. Don't get into chain-of-command arguments, please.unfortnatly, the mods are not answerable to US, but it's the other way around. I've seen some forums where you get one warning. period, that's it. you get warned for spam, then the next flame you do and pop! you're banned. then you troll, and it's a longer ban or deat.

The mods here are on the "Laid-Back" to "extra-friendly" on the Mod-Meter.

He is a member of the forum you're serving as moderator. Don't get into chain-of-command arguments, please.

Alrighty... I really, really disagree with Hogsweat's deletion. To be honest, this offense did not warrant a deletion.
Rather than just disagreeing with the deletion, he tells us that this offense doesn't warrant a deletion, when in fact, this offense has warranted a deletion in the past countless amounts of times. Griefing of this form generally leads to deletion. Saying we should make an exception here, for him, which is what he suggested, won't work, and that is why I said that in the first place. He needs to be aware of the precedent of breaking this rule.

(This post is in reply to MGH's affirmation a few posts up)

Hmm...in that case, may I suggest a memorial service in the NS thread, then move on?

The mods, as I see it, have handled a difficult case to the best of their ability, and have had the strength to make and uphold a popular decision. Paci, you have made an eloquelt, if failed appeal, and for this I applaud you. However, now may be the time to let it go.

HOGSWEAT
2003-2005
GONE BUT NOT FORGOTTEN

Hmm...in that case, may I suggest a memorial service in the NS thread, then move on?

HOGSWEAT
2003-2005
GONE BUT NOT FORGOTTEN

Probably not needed. He's been deleted, but he's still going to be with us as a different nation (most likely).

Probably not needed. He's been deleted, but he's still going to be with us as a different nation (most likely).

I meant for the Leader of the nation of Hogsweat. A way for a popular nation to get a proper send-off, and maybe even be gatecrashed by the new Hogsweat....

Sorry for the confusion.

I think we are all overlooking one thing.

As I understand it, Hoggy has not been IP-banned (someone correct me if I'm wrong on this). This means that the player behind Hogsweat is perfectly able to create a new nation (maybe Hogsweat II or H0gsweat or New Hogsweat or similar) and can resume forum actions. The player has been castigated, and programmes continue as normal.

It is a shame that Hoggy was DEATed, but alas even killing by accident is manslaughter, to analogise.

Look, I want Hogsweat back as much as anyone else. His hard work and the like, everything. However, with this knowledge that he is indeed capable of coming back once more as a different nation.

While I must admit thatI do not know, and thus do not fully trust, most of the new mods on here. I can say that without a the shadow of a doubt mercy was shown here, in some way or another. Perhaps its the rules, perhaps not.

There is nothing more anyone can do, Sulsa, whom I trust fully, has made up his mind. He, above all in my opinion, has the final say in matters such as these. With his say on this matter being that everything was done correctly, and by the post from the new Mod about the situation, I can understand the situation fully in the aspect that it is solved.

I want him back, yes....I want his Nation and hard-work back. But what can I do? There is a system of law here, and with this knowledge and Sulsa's proclamation that this law has been served, perhaps not justly, but nonetheless served, I cannot do anything more.

I say unto you all to allow the Mods whom ye Trust, and the new Mods, to go on with their business. I want Hogsweat back, yes. But that is no longer my domain to justify in. I do not understand the situation enough to place a say-so, but I do know enough to say that the decision is more than likely final.

He still can come back, he still can come on in a different nation. He still can Role Play.

However, as a lasting note, as I do trust Sulsa to the extreme limit in his judgements, I can say that perhaps something is amiss here. What I can say? I do not know. But either way, it is done. Hoqsweat is still my best friend on here, and I will not allow this to block that friendship, nor to anyone else.

I am and always will be Nodea Rudav, and my friends of past will always be my friends of the present, and future.

Goodnight Ya'll.

I meant for the Leader of the nation of Hogsweat. A way for a popular nation to get a proper send-off, and maybe even be gatecrashed by the new Hogsweat....

Sorry for the confusion.

If you make it into a roleplay, then by all means, go for it. However, it's always possible that Hogsweat may just continue on as a new nation, with the same leader/government, so I'd check with him first.

I meant for the Leader of the nation of Hogsweat. A way for a popular nation to get a proper send-off, and maybe even be gatecrashed by the new Hogsweat....He's already nuked himself (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=449730).

Just read the first post of that, and....DAMN, that's a ways to go.

Well after reading all of this I must say I have had a bit of change of opinion. While I am sad that Hogsweat was deleted, as I have always had a respect for many of the vereran RP'ers, (I lurk in NS like crazy, just dont post a lot) I can understand the Mod's decision. I know Hogsweat acted with good intent and all but it seems he just went about it the wrong way, as some members of the region, such as zepplin had no idea of the region change. Due to this fact it was a form of griefing, however good intentioned. I think the right decision was made.

However, this does bring up some issues. I know it is impossible to outline every possible scenario, but the rules should be a bit more... easy to learn. Just like Fris does not have time to look into every issue of Moderating, so do players not have time to dig through years of threads to find rules they may be punished for. I think maybe a reformat/ updating of the one stop rules shop is in order. This argument does have an issue however, as one could simply inquire in the Mod forum about whether or not what they may do is against a rule. Maybe make a sticky that is open where people can post obscure rule questions? I dont know.

It seems like this whole thing resulted from:

1. Hoggy acting too quickly and not going through the "legal" process
2. The rules being a bit foggy
3. Poor communication of facts on both parties sides, at least at first
4. Lack of trust

I dont know, that is my .02$

Kind of tired, sorry about the confused nature of this post.

Paci, you have made an eloquelt, if failed appeal, and for this I applaud you. However, now may be the time to let it go.

Thank you. However, I have no intention of letting this go until I see a mod/admin other than Salusa (who I thank for actually posting what I asked to see) post some concrete evidence which would lead to me respectfully dropping the issue. However, I'm also a little astonished at the complacency of some people on this board towards our current system.

Whatever happened to Sandpit's experiment on that... oh, yes, completely failed.

Oh, but look! I'm not Sandpit.

A Game Administrator's word isn't good enough for you?

If you had failed to snip the second half of my sentence off, you would have noticed I thanked him and had already done so previously in the topic for posting what I'd asked for. However, being the one that brought forward the proposal to democratise the moderation system on NS, I think you'd agree it'd be somewhat odd if I didn't ask for further opinion on this subject from others.

Salusa's words still carry quite a bit of clout in my mind as per this subject.

EDIT: Why did you just delete your post?

Because I realised it was unnecessary.

Thank you. However, I have no intention of letting this go until I see a mod/admin other than Salusa (who I thank for actually posting what I asked to see) post some concrete evidence which would lead to me respectfully dropping the issue..

The admin's word, which is final, isn't enough for you? It's regrettable that this had to happen to a poster and player as popular as Hogsweat, but the rule against mass ejections, a rule which has been enforced exactly equally dozens of times before, is quite clear; if you eject your whole region, no matter who you are, you have Done Bad. Want evidence this isn't a new rule, check the site FAQ:

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.

To be honest, these accusations border on the ridiculous. What conspiracy or bias is here? A conspiracy to delete people who contribute postively to NS? Are you saying we're biased in favour of deleting people we enjoy hanging out with on IRC?

Hogsweat is welcome to make a new nation. He's welcome to come back, claim his old population and carry on where he left off. But we cannot make an exception to the rules for him, no matter how much we might want to. As has been said, if we do that we really are showing bias.

You've had several post answers and state what all happened, Pac - including the mod who handled it all. It's becoming clear that you're more interested in your crusade than in the facts, and more wrapped up in continuing the drama than in reading what's already been posted. You've told others to stop being insulting, and then in the same breath insulted their ability to reason, to moderate, to try and enforce the rules as fairly as possible, and then tried to insinuate that their responses are 'only because you dislike me', disregarding most of what they've stated. I think it's time you stopped trying to play the 'innocence abused' card, and drop the hypocrisy. Things like this have a funny way of affecting one's credibility.

And no, you aren't Sandpit that I'm aware of. But you are using some of the same old tired and already adequately-addressed arguments. Hence, I believe, the reference. I'd thought much the same myself, remembering several threads from a while back on the topic of comittees and 'oversight' and all.

Something tells me it The Lord God of NationStates Max Barry Himself came down and wrote it in fire on the wall for you, you'd still find something about the situation that you felt 'hadn't been adequately addressed'.

Please. Take the time to read back, and actually reason for a moment. I think somewhere you're missing it entirely.

EDIT: again with posting after ze mods. Apologies if it sounds like I'm talking over the top of you - unintended.

Thank you. However, I have no intention of letting this go until I see a mod/admin other than Salusa ...

I'm afraid that you don't really have that luxury. You see, I'm a game administrator. That puts me at the top of authority for this site. This means that the other administrators don't outrank me. So, essentially, you're asking for another administrator to come in here and repeat what I've said, just because you're not happy with what one administrator said ... I'm sorry, but as I've said before, you don't really have that luxury.

Now, of course, you do have the owner of NationStates (who, I might note, has entrusted me with its safe-keeping) who is busy taking care of his (wonderfully cute!) newborn baby with his delightful wife. I should note that he'd back me up too. One of the reasons that I have this job is because we think alike...

This case is closed. Several moderators reviewed the deletion before it was carried out. Several more reviewed it afterwards. I reviewed the deletion and the process that the moderators used to reach this decision and the process they used to deal with the appeals later and you still aren't happy?

You know what, I'm sorry, but I'm going to say something that I very rarely say, "I don't really care." We examined this case thoroughly and the fact that you aren't satisfied is not sufficient reason for us to spend any more of our valuable time on it.

You've had several post answers and state what all happened, Pac - including the mod who handled it all. It's becoming clear that you're more interested in your crusade than in the facts, and more wrapped up in continuing the drama than in reading what's already been posted. You've told others to stop being insulting, and then in the same breath insulted their ability to reason, to moderate, to try and enforce the rules as fairly as possible, and then tried to insinuate that their responses are 'only because you dislike me', disregarding most of what they've stated. I think it's time you stopped trying to play the 'innocence abused' card, and drop the hypocrisy. Things like this have a funny way of affecting one's credibility.

Oh, man. You've got to be kidding me. When did this debate degenerate into a personal attack on me? Don't put thoughts in my head or words in my mouth - the intent is still the same: to find out why Hogsweat was deleted and to figure out whether there needs to be change in the way the moderators handle conflicts. The first has been addressed, and I thank Salusa for that. The second has somewhat, but not fully. That is the only reason I am still here. I'd appreciate if you'd stop taking EVERYTHING I said out of context - it's pretty annoying.

I don't think you're on clear on what a debate truly is. I don't know where you feel my rebuttals cross the line into hypocrisy by insulting people, but you seem to know. And stop painting me as the poor, disadvantaged child who didn't get his way. Because, frankly, if I had gotten the answers I'd asked for earlier, I'd be done with this topic. It's getting downright ridiculous. I wanted to have a civil discussion, but that's been shot down. So, I will retire respectfully from the debate.

I'm certainly not going to address the issue of Hogsweat's deletion. That's been settled, as far as I can tell, and it looks like folks are still coming in at it from different angles (ie. just vs. fair, which are often different things).

What I did find interesting was the issue of being afraid of the Mods.

While I agree with everything stated therein, I must totally be at one with this statement. I can say with honesty that I am afraid of a mod or mods that would go crazy and initiate sentences that would make no sense. How am I to comfort this thought, when I have seen the changes from the Old Mods to the new? I have been on NS for quite some time, admittedly I have been gone for some time also. But the fact that I remember what was done in the past, and done now, does give a right to express this concern.

I'm not afraid of the Mods. I don't see them as the personification of punishments. What I am afraid of is the punishment itself. You put it pretty well yourself in the next bit, NR.

I do not say that I am blamming anyone, or disagree with moderation choices. Rather, I say I am afraid. I don't want my Nation to be deleted like Hogsweat's was, I have worked too long and hard on it like he did.

I too, wouldn't want my nation(s) deleted because there are several, including this one, that I've put a lot of time into. That fear is good for me. Fear of losing something of value to me tends to make me sharper and more focused, less likely to break the rules.

I think that when we start to fear people rather than punishments we do something very unhelpful for ourselves and unfair for the people who punish.

Umm...instead of complaining on here, you guys might want to focus on your region now..you're being invaded. I think.

Unless this guy's a friend of you all..

69 minutes ago: The Federation of Pedolicious arrived from Deffyland.
110 minutes ago: The Armed Republic of Ecto arrived from 42 Douglas Adams.
3 hours ago: The Allied Tiburonese Republics of Cocentrica arrived from Lazarus.
3 hours ago: The Democratic States of Colonel Wartz arrived from Texas.


Colonel Wartz has 2 endos from the other two bolded nations

Umm...instead of complaining on here, you guys might want to focus on your region now..you're being invaded. I think.

Unless this guy's a friend of you all..



Colonel Wartz has 2 endos from the other two bolded nations

From the Texas Regional Happenings:

4 hours ago: The Democratic States of Colonel Wartz departed this region for Haven
4 hours ago: The Democratic States of Colonel Wartz arrived from The East Pacific.


It looks like either a very poor attempt to cover his tracks or a simple mistake.

I may be a bit late here, but I'd still like to put in my 0.2 cents.

1) The issue of Hogsweat just starting a new nation and starting over. Imagine you start a 3000 piece puzzle. You get to 2900 pieces in place, then suddenly someone comes and rips it all up. You won't just start again. Similarly, Hogsweat has put two years worth of effort into his nation, and he's put in more effort than most people I know. RP's, weapons designs, flag, everything. Two years of history and effort have just been wiped out, its not that easy to start over.

2) Haven itself does not have a founder, therefore there was nobody who legally could refound the region. It was agreed upon by the active natives to refound the region, but there were inactive people there who would have held up the refounding by months. Therefore the refounding had to be done by ejection, and as Hogsweat was the delegate, it was widely agreed upon that Hogsweat would eject and refound.

3) Haven, being an RPing region, relies on active nations. When it got from 50 nations when I joined to about 25 before the ejection, the active natives agreed that something had to be done, and they agreed that a refounding was that thing.

4) Region Griefing is used to describe the practice of illegally ejecting too many members of a region after invading it.
That, by the mods own definition, is region griefing. Now Hogsweat didn't invade the region, he had the natives support and had had for about four months. Now surely if the One Stop Rules Shop is not up to date now, then how is Hogsweat supposed to know the new rules? To the best of my knowledge, he isn't psychic, so how was he to know?


These are my personal queries with this judgement, could a mod please respond?

Sancta, I have seen several regions refound in a legal way, without a founder. It may take patience, but it is not hard to do. A friend of mine is even more or less specialised in refounding regions, helping others to get a founder.

edit: link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=301703) It's also about what native delegates can do.

CG, how? Bear in mind half the people are inactive, or only sign in once a week, such as me. It could have taken me months to notice something was up.

Although I might be mistaken about what the tolerance is for internally-elected Delegates, the tolerance for Invader Delegates is definitely much, much less
If there's no tolerance for native "griefers" then how can there be much much less for invader delegates?

Other than that, I didn't see anything pertaining to native delegates clearing a region with the approval of natives.....

Other than that, I didn't see anything pertaining to native delegates clearing a region with the approval of natives.....

Look, the admin has spoken, and I really think that this is going to have to be left at protesting sigs. But, on this point, Fris has already covered this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9800579&postcount=17): the only possible method of approval is self-ejection i.e. leaving. It doesn't matter how willing you are to be ejected.

inactives die off after 28 or 60 days, not more.

Inactives who only log on once a week, telegram. Email or message through forum if possible.

I'd still like a mod to respond to my four points if possible. Thanks.

You know what, I think this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9801300&postcount=82) already covers it. All the points have also been addressed separately, or simply dismissed. I'm not saying it's good, or even right...but I really think the only thing that can be said is "Case closed".

I'll bite.

1) The issue of Hogsweat just starting a new nation and starting over. Imagine you start a 3000 piece puzzle. You get to 2900 pieces in place, then suddenly someone comes and rips it all up. You won't just start again. Similarly, Hogsweat has put two years worth of effort into his nation, and he's put in more effort than most people I know. RP's, weapons designs, flag, everything. Two years of history and effort have just been wiped out, its not that easy to start over.
Irrelevant. If we were prone to be moved by cases of pity such as this, we'd have to attach some kind of premium on the extent of a player's involvement with the site. Not going to happen.

2) Haven itself does not have a founder, therefore there was nobody who legally could refound the region. It was agreed upon by the active natives to refound the region, but there were inactive people there who would have held up the refounding by months. Therefore the refounding had to be done by ejection, and as Hogsweat was the delegate, it was widely agreed upon that Hogsweat would eject and refound.
How would they hold up the process for "months?" Even assuming they're on vacation the nation will still cease after 60 days; if they log in it can generally also be assumed that they see and read their telegrams. Most people will respond to them eventually , but those that don't can't just be [i]kicked out because they didn't respond before you wanted to go ahead and do it.

3) Haven, being an RPing region, relies on active nations. When it got from 50 nations when I joined to about 25 before the ejection, the active natives agreed that something had to be done, and they agreed that a refounding was that thing.
And the active natives need to contact the inactive natives and devise an alternate course of action should they disagree or not answer at all. Again, this would seem to imply that RP regions, being unique in nature, should be applicable for an exemption of established [and perfectly justified] rules.

4)
That, by the mods own definition, is region griefing. Now Hogsweat didn't invade the region, he had the natives support and had had for about four months. Now surely if the One Stop Rules Shop is not up to date now, then how is Hogsweat supposed to know the new rules? To the best of my knowledge, he isn't psychic, so how was he to know?
For one thing, mass ejections themselves are actionable, unless the nation [not simply the same player] doing it has game defined Founder status [not 'regional consensual Founder status']. Labelling Hogsweat's actions as 'Griefing' may be slightly heavy-handed, but that doesn't make his actions any less legal.

For another thing, I got a parking ticket once for parking in front of a fire hydrant I didn't notice. My ignorance of its presence didn't make a difference, really; and that's the way it should be.

I'm with TH. Exasperated by, amused by, occasionally wary of and mostly respectful towards the Mods, yes; but afraid of, no.

Main reason: we're all cyber-folks, and this is a game. Okay, even in games we feel have every right to feel unfairly treated if people don't play by the rules, or what we see as the rules. And feelings are real, even if our nations aren't. But you can only hurt my feelings, not ruin my life.

Sure, I'd hate to be DEATed. It would make me feel shamed in front of our 'community', even though I've never seen a one of you. I felt that way when Vastiva was DEATed. I didn't just mourn the loss of all his work on his nation, I felt embarrassed for a friend.

But, in fact, if nation Fredtopia is DEATed, what's to stop him coming back as Fredistan? The imagination that went into his original work is still there. All the punishment actually does is remove his population.

Which is where we come down to it: removing population from a "statisics" RPer is a heavier punishment than removing population from someone like me, since my RPs concentrate on characters and IC-ly I don't give a damn how big my trade in cheese or guns or whatever is.

It's also heavier than removing population from someone who stays around General (I mean, look at Tink, Arisen and as chirpy as ever), and possibly for a UN devotee, since there your population doesn't matter half as much as your debating skills or your region's vote-count.

So for many of us, if it weren't for the shame factor, a forum ban (which would shut us up) would be more galling than a DEAT (from which we could effectively recover almost immediately).

I don't know how you'd get around this. I suppose you'd have to do in more detail what you already do in the case of DEATs: look at the record. You'd have to let the punishment fit the criminal as well as the crime. You'd also have to figure out some way of phrasing the distinction so it could be written in the rules.

I wonder if one way out would be to say that the maximum penalty for certain offences is DEATing the nation OR a 30/60/90-day (or whatever) specific-forum ban on the player, at the discretion of the Mods, based on the player's history? Or would that entail too much extra work checking IPs and such?

Unless the perceived inequality is eliminated, I'm afraid such DEATs will continue to cause angst like the outpouring we've just seen.

Edit: Sorry, I didn't see Melkor's post before I sent this. And I also didn' realise I was signed in as Findhorn, not Ardchoille. Point still stands, though: I'm not suggesting certain kinds of players deserve lesser punishment, just different punishment.

For one thing, mass ejections themselves are actionable, unless the person doing it has Founder status. Labelling Hogsweat's actions as 'Griefing' may be slightly heavy-handed, but that doesn't make his actions any less legal.

For another thing, I got a parking ticket once for parking in front of a fire hydrant I didn't notice. My ignorance of its presence didn't make a difference, really; and that's the way it should be.

Additionally (just as one more point of information for those following this whole exchange) it would seem to me that no appeal to ignorance of this fact can reasonably be made just because it isn't in the OSRS, considering the red warning message a Delegate receives after ejecting a certain number of nations cautioning them that continuing with mass ejections can result in running afoul of the moderators.

The Nation of XXXXX has been ejected from XXXXX.

Note: ejecting large numbers of nations from a region is against game rules and may cause the moderators to take action against you!

The existence of this warning was discussed right here in Moderation just a couple days ago when another player encountered it and (quite reasonably) stopped in his tracks and checked in here to make sure he wasn't going to get himself deleted before continuing:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=449475&highlight=eject

Note the clearly posted ruling that this message can be ignored only if you are a Founder. So unless the ejections were somehow performed without tripping the warning...

Why would Hogsweat read the Moderation forum every day just to see if there's something about some region thats in no way related to him? All I think is that Haven is a special case because of its founderless status, that maybe the delegate should be given the responsibilities of a founder assuming he's a native.

Why would Hogsweat read the Moderation forum every day just to see if there's something about some region thats in no way related to him? All I think is that Haven is a special case because of its founderless status, that maybe the delegate should be given the responsibilities of a founder assuming he's a native.

...that's not a special case. Regions become founderless all the time. In fact, a Haven member asked about appointing a Founder, and was told by a mod that this only happens in extremely rare circumstances. (This happened a good deal before the griefing'.)

And the part in red is shown on the page where you make the ejections, the regional controls page. So he even had a fair warning this could happen, but chose to ignore it.

And I have read numerous threads that have concerned refoundings and none of them have implied that they are banned. The One Stop Rules Shop does not say that anything he did is banworthy (which is strange if, as you continue to assert, refounding is in fact a well known deletable offence). If it is the case that it is an offence enshrined in NationStates case law, then a warning is appropriate, not a deletion, regardless of the circumstances simply because we cannot expect players to have to read dozens of threads in technical and moderation just to know what the damn rules are. I hate to be rude, but if you cant keep the rules up to date, dont be suprised when people complain about you enforcing unknown rules.

Im certain that there will be no moderation reforms coming out of this - there never are. Im certain that Hogsweat's sentence will not be lightened to a warning - they never are, regardless of anything. But what I would like to see is someone at least trying to make a comprehensive set of rules for NS and removing all of this "Rules are subject to change at any time." rubbish which, from where Im standing, seems to be being used simply to justify deleting people who dont deserve it.

I hate to be rude, but if you cant keep the rules up to date, dont be suprised when people complain about you enforcing unknown rules.I hate to be rude, but if you can't be bothered to see if the major action you're undertaking is legal, don't be surprised when you're punished.

Have you ever come across any large forum, on the scale of NS, were such rules exist in absolute codified form? I certainly haven't. It is wildly impractical to expect such a thing.

I agree that, in this instance, the OSRS should make it clear that refounding by griefing is illegal, for those who can't already make the inference.

But to suggest that from that some sort of absolute tablet of the law needs to be drawn up seems very dangerous. We already have enough rules lawyers here.

So, if you plan something as radical as kicking everyone out a region, would it hurt to ask first? I beleive the warning shown a few posts above is given after the second or third ejection and keeps being given by every ejection right after. So technically meaning he got about 30 warnings. Also, he didn't get banned, just deleted.

Why would he bother to check? Next time I sign into the forums should I check if I'm allowed to? Or next time I move region? I can't speak for hogsweat, but I at least don't start from the assumption that everything is illegal. Some things seem so obvious that there's just no point in checking their legality.

Quite. Which is why the rules need to be set in such as way so that by reading the rules, people will know what the rules are.

EDIT: That was in responce to Hack.

Have you ever come across any large forum, on the scale of NS, were such rules exist in absolute codified form? I certainly haven't. It is wildly impractical to expect such a thing.
Yes, I have. Nukezone for one. You have a mdoeration staff of ~dozen people to do this who each have a few years of experience on this game. Dont tell me that's an impossible task? At the very least add things which are (and I quote a mod) "well known rules" to a "One Stop (pfft) Rules Shop".

Next time I sign into the forums should I check if I'm allowed to? Or next time I move region?False analogy.

Logging on, or moving to a new region is catagorically different then ejecting mass numbers of people from a region. For one, it doesn't throw up a giant red warning when you move to a new region or hit the forums.

Your trying to argue from emotion, and that's not going to cut it. I suggest everyone go back a dozen or so posts and re-read the last thing Salusa had to say.

It's amazing how all of you people just rush to say 'oh my god this isn't supposed to be happening' and all, but in the end it all comes down to this: Hogsweat kicked all of them from the region Haven which is against the rules. A very stupid rule I admit because the founder Edolia died months ago. But this rule exists even before the creation of the childish One Stop Rules Shop, so you cannot state 'we did not know about this.' Come on, even I know about it.

You people seem to think that this is a case of 'they cannot deny numbers', well tough shit coming down the drain: they can. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9800298&postcount=111 Now, we have established that moderators just do whatever the hell they want because there's nobody to overlook their actions with Salusa being just one of them and Max/[violet] is always gone. But on the other hand, why would anyone want to overlook it? This game is popular as hell, one being deleted doesn't make a change. At all. Commercial thinking is the name of the game, one gone and ten will take his or her place. It's like a big corporation, you can strike all you want but in the end your pension plan and savings are screwed either way. And on NationStates you can't even strike. You can't show physical force, you have no means to exact pressure on them. Sounds cruel? You bet. And this is how it is. Life's unfair, and you think: 'oh my God we're living in some kind of internet dicatorship!' Good job Sherlock, look outside and watch the news, politicians do the same thing. You can bitch and cry all you want until you lie in your dirt-cheap coffin, and nothing is going to change. Unless something so shocking happens the government makes a few lousy concessions and that's it. Feel free to compare this with DA's 2nd deletion. The IP thing. Why would any supervisor care about one player being deleted? Did he contribute anything of significant value to the game - where everybody contributes roleplay which excludes that - answer's no? Who would have thought that! Even if you look at it from a different perspective you'd see this doesn't help a thing. To put it bluntly: Hogsweat was just another player in a game where registration date, popularity and reputation don't mean a thing to the moderation staff. Just like real politicians, you're just a number.

I cannot understand how all of you think the mods would care about one player being deleted for something a dozen people are deleted for on a daily/weekly basis. If they weren't mods you could have sworn they were all puppets belonging to one owner. Drop the issue people, it won't help you, or Hogsweat, or your own reputation here. To hook up on the 'whole region agreed' argument, I do recall around 50% of the region being inactive, so they can't even have read the question in my belief. But that doesn't change the fact breaking the rules remains breaking rules. If you're allowed to murder someone, even with permission from your victim, you are still breaking the law.

Just look at the replies of the moderation and see for yourself. Each mod agrees with the decision and why would they disagree all of a sudden? I fail to see why they should, for them there's no difference between Hogsweat or a random n00b doing it. The fact he made over 4000 (?) posts is irrelevant, and that was the same for DA, Whittier - a 2002 nation - and all the others who got deleted. Look, Hogsweat has been warned before so it's as logical as taking a big dump the day after you ate ten fried chickens. Bitching moaning and crying isn't going to help anything. Look how far you got: talking about small details why the mods are so wrong, biased, prejudiced. Now I ask you, what else is new?

RIP Hogsweat, March '03-October '05. Unjustly deleted.

And another thing, do you people think this does any good? It shows you disagree. Well I disagree with this whole melodramatic scene, just because you found him friendly on MSN and because he was your ally in a game. In a month or two people have forgotten all about this, you mark my words. To put emphasis on this: anyone remember Wyattland? No? Well he died of cancer a few months ago. Much ado was made about it on II around that time and now people have forgotten. Same thing will happen here.

This is written from the player behind the nations Guffingford, Holy Panooly and Sirens of Titan. I express my OWN opinion here.

Going back to the waiting for everyone to leave point.

Its impossible to leave a region, for two months, especially a region as well known as Haven, and not expect it to be invaded. And even assuming its not, a big assumption, then all it takes is two UN nations to decide they don't feel like leaving Haven, endorsing the other and passwording it. Or even if not, just one guy can stay in Haven indefinitely, and Haven members couldn't have done anything about it.

Hack: Well my post wasnt arguing from emotion. The rule he broke was not one in the "One Stop Rules Shop" and I, quite frankly, do not expect to have to ask if something that a "One Stop" rules thread does not say is against the rules is against the rules. It may be true that Hogsweat broke some rule that was established in a few posts on Moderation a few months ago, but he didnt know that, and considering the stated nature of a "One Stop Rules Shop" he shouldnt be reasonably expected to know that. For that reason, although a warning may be apt, in my opinion deletion was disporportionate and unjust.

Its impossible to leave a region, for two months, especially a region as well known as Haven, and not expect it to be invaded. And even assuming its not, a big assumption, then all it takes is two UN nations to decide they don't feel like leaving Haven, endorsing the other and passwording it. Or even if not, just one guy can stay in Haven indefinitely, and Haven members couldn't have done anything about it.

Yes. And if they're natives, they have the right to do that.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=446663
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=445209
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=434233
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=430394
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=421080
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=363397
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=419115
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=399499
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=394801
some precedents...and more to come

People, people.

Hogsweat has been deleted.

Rightfully or not, is one's own opinion. Mine is that it is, but that doesn't matter.

The mods have made it clear; whatever is said isn't going to change the decision. This is a big waste of virtual ink.

Please, let's get on with our lives.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=446663
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=445209
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=434233
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=430394
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=421080
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=363397
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=419115
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=399499
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=394801
some precedents...and more to come
Oh Im sure there are precedents. But can every member of NS be expected to read up extensively on NS caselaw? No. Can you reasonably expect someone who pays no real interest in others' rules infractions to expect not to find a rule that will get him deleted in a self-described "One Stop" rules shop? No.

It's amazing how all of you people just rush to say 'oh my god this isn't supposed to be happening' and all, but in the end it all comes down to this: Hogsweat kicked all of them from the region Haven which is against the rules. A very stupid rule I admit because the founder Edolia died months ago.
Mistake number one. Edolia was delegate not founder.

Commercial thinking is the name of the game, one gone and ten will take his or her place. It's like a big corporation, you can strike all you want but in the end your pension plan and savings are screwed either way.
Thanks for the idea, I'll keep it in mind.


Hogsweat was just another player in a game where registration date, popularity and reputation don't mean a thing to the moderation staff. Just like real politicians, you're just a number.
And thats really the attitude you think this game should have? "I don't care about you, so I'll just delete you and ten more people'll take your place"?

I cannot understand how all of you think the mods would care about one player being deleted for something a dozen people are deleted for on a daily/weekly basis.
Because this is a special case, namely the fact that Hogsweat is not a region crasher, takes no interest in gameplay issues and does not know the gameplay rules, same as all the Haven members. Haven is founderless so nobody could do it, therefore by common consent Hogsweat did.


If they weren't mods you could have sworn they were all puppets belonging to one owner.
You have no argument with me here.

Drop the issue people, it won't help you, or Hogsweat, or your own reputation here.
I've already left NS, did so about three months ago, I couldn't care shit about my reputation to be honest. I'd much rather support a friend who I know is right than just lie down and accept whatever the mods do without question.


If you're allowed to murder someone, even with permission from your victim, you are still breaking the law.
Mistake number 2: In Switzerland and Holland I believe, Euthanasia, is legal.

In a month or two people have forgotten all about this, you mark my words.
Not if I can help it :)


To be honest, that entire post of yours looked like someone who had some pent up stress to take out, so he took it out on someone he dislikes despite having no knowledge of the issue at hand.

People, people.

Hogsweat has been deleted.

Rightfully or not, is one's own opinion. Mine is that it is, but that doesn't matter.

The mods have made it clear; whatever is said isn't going to change the decision. This is a big waste of virtual ink.

Please, let's get on with our lives.
The only waste of virtual ink was your post just here. You want to get on with your life, you can, nobody's making you read this. Just remember this thread when your best friend gets deleted unjustly.

Mistake number 2: In Switzerland and Holland I believe, Euthanasia, is legal.

umm..only under very strict rules, and i think it's only tolerated then, not exactly legal...

The only waste of virtual ink was your post just here. You want to get on with your life, you can, nobody's making you read this. Just remember this thread when your best friend gets deleted unjustly.

Sancta. I'm not going to get into an argument. I'll just point this out. Hogsweat has IRC. The mods - at least one is online at any time of the day - are on IRC. It's not difficult to just log on and verbally ask now, is it?

The only waste of virtual ink was your post just here. You want to get on with your life, you can, nobody's making you read this. Just remember this thread when your best friend gets deleted unjustly.

Sancta, the only reason you and others are making such a big fuss over this, is because he was some bigshot roleplayer and a friend of yours. This has happened hundreds of times before, the exact same thing.
In just about each case, the exact same punishment was given.

He was warned about 30 times with bright red letters. He broke the rules, got punished. Just like any other player would have been, has been, and will be in the future.

1.
Well, thanks for correcting me about Edolia. When he was the delegate, he didn't pull off tricks like this. If Hogsweat did the same nothing would've happened.

2.
You're welcome!

3.
It's not an attitude the game is going to have, the game already has this attitude. Looks like it all right, acceptation is better than denial.

4.
Not at all. He ejected them all, and ejecting as a delegate in excess of three or four is against the lame-ass rules. Who else has to spell it out for you? When Tir was still delegate in Imperial Armies, he had access to the regional controls. If he decided to eject everyone nobody would care here, and it would mean his deletion. He has zero posts on this forum, idem for the regional forum. Why am I saying this? Such things happen daily. Hogsweat is NO exception.

5.
Yup.

6.
Do you have the feeling anything's going to be changed? Answer me in all honesty if you dare.

7.
In the Netherlands euthenasia is legal, but two independent doctors have to agree independently that the patient has no signs of healing, and death is the only way to end the suffering. If one doctor agrees, it is murder. If the two doctors 'conspire' to end the life, it is murder or manslaughter.

8.
You will, don't try to deny it. And I'm not some stressed out person who desperately wants his RP buddy back while knowing in the back of your head that this is all a waste of time. The mods just let all of you to vent, so you won't take your frustrations out to other player. This is a contained conflict, why won't you all accept its pointless. Look at all the appeals to Max/[violet] have been made, and each and every one of them is rejected. Salusa disagrees, the mods disagree. Shouldn't that be ringing a bell or something?

He was warned about 30 times with bright red letters. He broke the rules, got punished. Just like any other player would have been, has been, and will be in the future.
As is a founder, who is perfectly within his rights to eject whoever the hell he likes. The red letters are meaningless if not backed up by the rules threads.

Sancta, the only reason you and others are making such a big fuss over this, is because he was some bigshot roleplayer and a friend of yours. This has happened hundreds of times before, the exact same thing.
In just about each case, the exact same punishment was given.

He was warned about 30 times with bright red letters. He broke the rules, got punished. Just like any other player would have been, has been, and will be in the future.
Wrong CG, had he taken over some region and kicked everyone out for the hell of it without telling anyone in advance, in short, if he had no case, I wouldn't be defending him. Not having a case and ignoring the case are two seperate matters.

The red letters are a hint that what you are doing is possibly illegal, founders can safely ignore them, yes, but Hogs wasn't a founder. He was a delegate, and got fair warning.

Okay, this silliness has carried on long enough.

There are no further lines of appeal, an Admin has already ruled. Leaving this open hasn't generated anything new, novel, or mitigating. If Salusa feels there's merit in this being open, he's more than welcome to reopen it. Until then, this thread is done.

If you want to continue it, go register with Blogger or Blogspot or Livejournal.

-The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

Oh Im sure there are precedents. But can every member of NS be expected to read up extensively on NS caselaw? No. Can you reasonably expect someone who pays no real interest in others' rules infractions to expect not to find a rule that will get him deleted in a self-described "One Stop" rules shop? No.


Ok, come on now. If you are planning to do something big like refound a region which HAS been done countless times before here, doesn't it make sense to look at what consitutes a sucessful refounding and what constitutes a griefing?

I guarentee if you just start building an addition to your house without getting the proper permits, the housing authority is not going to listen to how you didn't know. If you are undertaking a major project of any kind you research.

What amazes me is that this is NOT an obscure rule -- ejecting masses of natives if you are not the founder is well known as griefing. Ignoring the message you get stating that if you eject anyone else the moderation staff will investigate it is plain foolish.

In an attempt to stave off people ranting and raving in totally unrelated threads and in quasi-related threads, I'm going to open this back up, with the hope that people have had their naps and have calmed down a little bit.

I'm also curious as to if people actually have something new to say, or if they simply intent to yell the same things over and over again and hope that repitition will lead to truth.

A few things to keep in mind:
This case has already been reviewed by administration. There are no further lines of appeal. The decision is not going to be over-turned.
"We didn't know" or "I'm not gonna read through a zillion threads" is arguing from ignorance. Not knowing the rule is not an excuse for breaking the rule. If you don't know, ask.
The bright red warnings are hard coded into the game. With the number of nations ejected by Hogsweat, he was either blind, or didn't care. Not our fault he ignored them.
"He should have been warned first" is not sufficient, nor is it accurate. Illegal mass ejection always results in being deleted. Let me repeat that: illegal mass ejection always results in being deleted. Just like posting Goatse to the forums always results in being deleted. It's not a new rule, that's how it's always been.
Haven is not a special case. There are over 37,000 regions in this game, many of them do not have a Founder. Not having a Founder doesn't make a region special, and it certainly doesn't let you ignore the rules.
"It isn't explicitly stated in the OSRS" just rings hollow. While it appears that rules now need to include every eventuality, this argument is still worthless, as nobody involved bothered to check anyway.
"They asked the Mods!" No, they did not. The only notification or attempt at rules clairification made was one member popping into #themodcave, saying "Anybody here?" and leaving awhile later when nobody responded. I would hope that nobody expects us to translate "anybody here" as "we're going to eject massive numbers of nations from our region in an attempt to refound and we were wondering if that's okay with y'all."
We do not "delete" regions. We do not install Founders except in the most extreme of cases (see above point: not having a Founder doesn't count as "extreme").
"He should have been told". Told what? Told when? Are we to tell every single player, every single rule, every single day? Issues of personal responsibility aside, if we aren't asked, we can't be expected to read someone's mind. And given that he was a regular on IRC channels where both Moderators and experienced gameplayers hang out, it shouldn't have been too hard to ask.

I believe that's all the common inaccuracies I been reading lately. Now, does anyone have anything new to add, or can most of this be summed up as "He was my friend so he shouldn't have been deleted"?

Or, my personal favorite, "He was deleted because the Mods are fascists."

Another issue that people seem to think is that we wanted to delete Hogsweat, and that we were 'waiting for the right time' to do it, or we were 'looking for an excuse'. Get this into your heads, we didn't want to do it. Noting from what Hack just said, with "illegal mass ejection always results in being deleted.", making an exception here would mean that we would be bias against those who have been deleted before him for committing the same action. The whole point of "Oh, but you guys didn't have to delete him" is moot.

I don't understand what everyone doesn't seem to get. He broke the rules. The mods dealt with the issue in the same way that they would if it were anyone else. Yes, it's a shame that Hogsweat's work has been flushed, but the bright red warning after each kick should have clued him in. If not to stop, but to consult the mods.

When I rebooted Side 3 after an invasion, I first consulted the mods. I also had the go ahead of everyone who was active. Not just a token few who were on at the time I decided to do it. I waited a few days for people to log in and post objections. I was not deleted.

If I consulted the mods for a region with six people in it, don't you think it would have been a good idea to do the same for a region with six times that many people in it?

Is there any reason not to restore the World Factbook entry that Haven had before this whole mess, as opposed to something like "banlist cleared" and period, at that?

I don't think they keep records of that. You'll have to take it up with the delegate.

I don't think they keep records of that. You'll have to take it up with the delegate.
Err... There isn't any delegate now. The region, as of currently, is already being invaded.

That is where you are wrong. As of the last time I was able to connect, an ADN member was delegate and Riah was being supported as a naitive delegate.

I actually gotta sympathize with the mods here. If they give Hogsweat a break then a bazillion griefers and invaders will fly in here and start making noise and they'll never hear the end of it.

If they don't give him a break then a lot of people start hating the mods.

Not really a win-win situation. x.X

I actually gotta sympathize with the mods here. If they give Hogsweat a break then a bazillion griefers and invaders will fly in here and start making noise and they'll never hear the end of it.

If they don't give him a break then a lot of people start hating the mods.

Not really a win-win situation. x.X

To quote the movie "Wargames", the only winning move is to not play at all. Unfortunately for all parties involved, Hogsweat started the game when he attempted to reboot the region in an unlawful manner.

Just going to make a side note to Praetonia ("As is a founder, who is perfectly within his rights to eject whoever the hell he likes. The red letters are meaningless if not backed up by the rules threads.") - so it's not in the rules threads. Does that mean any newbie who doesnt use the forums can use the same excuse for booting a region?

Greetings, all.

After reading through both Hogsweat threads, I realized something that *nobody*has discussed or got answers to, or at least not what I can remember (reading multi-hundred posts nonstop tends to do that to you).

I wonder- what if the inactive members don't give a damn about their region? I.E. Couch Potato nations... take this for example...

Haven may have had a few nations that only logs in to stay alive to avoid 28 day auto-delete. They don't give a damn about the Haven region, nor its happenings.

Then what is to be done about *those* nations that don't bother to reply or even acknowledge any TG's made by Hogsweat or anyone else for that matter?

I think that someone should have the right to be inactive in a region, but a sitting delegate has the right to kick a nation in the course of normal events if they feel otherwise. But a refounding doesn't seem to me to be a normal event. If a large enough percentage of the population ignores the telegrams, then a refounding isn't really supported enough.

Greetings, all.

After reading through both Hogsweat threads, I realized something that *nobody*has discussed or got answers to, or at least not what I can remember (reading multi-hundred posts nonstop tends to do that to you).

I wonder- what if the inactive members don't give a damn about their region? I.E. Couch Potato nations... take this for example...

Haven may have had a few nations that only logs in to stay alive to avoid 28 day auto-delete. They don't give a damn about the Haven region, nor its happenings.

Then what is to be done about *those* nations that don't bother to reply or even acknowledge any TG's made by Hogsweat or anyone else for that matter?

It could be argued that by ignoring the TGs and not leaving, they were in fact casting their vote.

Greetings, all.

After reading through both Hogsweat threads, I realized something that *nobody*has discussed or got answers to, or at least not what I can remember (reading multi-hundred posts nonstop tends to do that to you).

I wonder- what if the inactive members don't give a damn about their region? I.E. Couch Potato nations... take this for example...

Haven may have had a few nations that only logs in to stay alive to avoid 28 day auto-delete. They don't give a damn about the Haven region, nor its happenings.

Then what is to be done about *those* nations that don't bother to reply or even acknowledge any TG's made by Hogsweat or anyone else for that matter?except some nations from the region did admit not hearing anything about a Refounding attempt. they were just booted out with no explination.

however, because ignorance is not an exscuse, I am trying to put something together like a how to guide, using Refounding a region as it's first entry. any comments and suggestions from players and mods alike are welcome.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=449891

Then what is to be done about *those* nations that don't bother to reply or even acknowledge any TG's made by Hogsweat or anyone else for that matter?

Nothing, but then, I can't do anything about them in my region either... we had more then enough of them but they are part of the region and they are natives. At the end of the day some people simply can't get on or they are on holiday and it would be unfair not to count them when doing something as big as that.

At the end of the day, had Hogsweat taken his time, informed everyone (moderators included) and sorted things out all this could have been avoided. I know when my region wanted to get a new founder we made inquiries and asked about what was possible before finding out it wasn't possible without 100% support, and even then only in a extreme case. If you don't ask about something first and then make a mistake then I'm sorry, ignorance isn't an excuse... otherwise it's everyones excuse and we would have chaos.

I'm sorry, I think it's unlucky that he got deeted, but an exception couldn't be made for someone you like and thats that. Next time be more careful and ask if you aren't sure.

Well....

There are somewhat developing ideas here on my part. First: My my initial take on it, disagreeing with the decision to delete and hoping that this does not cause too much fallout. (http://knootoss.blogspot.com/2005/10/rip-hogsweat-march-03-october-05.html). Since then there has been lots of shit and bitching and such made me ask: Why can’t we all just get along? (http://knootoss.blogspot.com/2005/10/why-cant-we-all-just-get-along.html) Having to temp-ban people from the NSwiki for defacing stuff related to Gruenberg, Scolo etc. in this debate does not make Knooty happy.

A report on wiki events is in the second entry I linked to. I would also really like to call on people not to abuse Nswiki for this. This is a) childish and b) I am on top of you.

~Knootoss, posting from a silly puppet.

At the end of the day, had Hogsweat taken his time, informed everyone (moderators included) and sorted things out all this could have been avoided. I know when my region wanted to get a new founder we made inquiries and asked about what was possible before finding out it wasn't possible without 100% support, and even then only in a extreme case. If you don't ask about something first and then make a mistake then I'm sorry, ignorance isn't an excuse... otherwise it's everyones excuse and we would have chaos.moral of the story.

I think that someone should have the right to be inactive in a region, but a sitting delegate has the right to kick a nation in the course of normal events if they feel otherwise. But a refounding doesn't seem to me to be a normal event. If a large enough percentage of the population ignores the telegrams, then a refounding isn't really supported enough.

Hmm. Therefore lies the problem.

Lets take Nations A through F, and G through T, and U through Z.

Nations A through F = Active players, that RP and are involved with the region activity.

Nations G through T = Couch Potatoes that do not respond to any TG's or even read regional message boards. They just sit there, log in and out every two weeks or so to avoid 28 day auto-delete. They don't give any damn about the current events in their region as there is no feature for nations to be region-less.

Nations U through Z = Inactive nations that *do* read TG's and respond / acknowledge regional happenings. Examples include Sanctraprax and Zeppelin Manufacturers.

Therefore, even if Hogsweat TG'ed Nations G through Z, the Couch Potato ones and the Inactive-But-Responsive nations, he would have no idea whether the Couch Potato nations even acknowledge the regional re-founding. Most any large regions inevitably have nations just sit there as couch potatoes- like South Pacific, West Pacific, North America, etc. or any region with 25+ nations.

Therefore, the "vote" would essentially fall to Nations A through F (Active ones like Hogsweat, Praetonia, etc.) and Nations U through Z (Sanctraprax and Zeppelin for instance).

Nobody ever said refounding was easy.

Nobody ever said refounding was easy.

I remember when I was delegate of Nederland and we had to refound it. It took fucking aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaages to do. Fortunately, I had Ballotonia at the time who helped me and who knew the rules and stuff. Not all of us have a personal Ballotonia assistant though. :(

I remember when I was delegate of Nederland and we had to refound it. It took fucking aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaages to do. Fortunately, I had Ballotonia at the time who helped me and who knew the rules and stuff. Not all of us have a personal Ballotonia assistant though. :(funny, when Paradise Beach Region needed a Refounding, it went smoothly. tho a couple (literally) of nations needed the bootout. it was back up in a short time. Guess when everyone cooperates, it goes by fast and smooth.

Actually, I believe that it is unreasonable that a region cannot be re-founded or such given that the region in question has no founder and the fact that even one nation can destroy everything by refusing or not even acknowledge *anything* from the region's boards, various TG's, and the like.

Region policy should be established by active players and even the inactive nations that *do* respond to TG's, regional messages, and any other communication method.

funny, when Paradise Beach Region needed a Refounding, it went smoothly. tho a couple (literally) of nations needed the bootout. it was back up in a short time. Guess when everyone cooperates, it goes by fast and smooth.

Nederland was and is a fairly big region. (As you can see here. (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Nederland))

Nobody ever said refounding was easy.

Indeed it isn't, we've had a hell of a time trying in Urbanites but we never really got anywhere... doesn't help of course that we had a small number of anarchists who hated the idea of a founder as being against our ways as Urbanites but they were part of us too, even if they were the minority.

However, all things said and done such things would take time one way or another... you need everyone to work with you, even the inactive ones, otherwise you haven't got full support if you really want new founder it can only really work if everyone takes part, either to move to the temp region before you wipe the old, or just to petition the mods to make you a founder. Even inactive members get a say and their say (even if it's nothing) counts. So you really need to take time and do it right.

As I said before he didn't do it right. We don't all need to read all the minutae of the rules, but if we incist on doing something big like this, it doesn't take much to ask about it and take some time to make sure you get an answer. I'm sorry if that pisses people off, but thats the bare facts of it.

I think I'm going to use my NS time to start NSwiki articles on Significant Moderation Precedents to help reduce ignorance of the rules and precidents on NS. Although I think that Hogsweat's deletion was regrettable, I don't see any way that the moderators could have reasonably ruled any other way in this case.

However, all things said and done such things would take time one way or another... you need everyone to work with you, even the inactive ones, otherwise you haven't got full support if you really want new founder it can only really work if everyone takes part, either to move to the temp region before you wipe the old, or just to petition the mods to make you a founder. Even inactive members get a say and their say (even if it's nothing) counts. So you really need to take time and do it right.

So what you're saying is that re-founding is impossible if just one nation refuses to acknwoledge any communication of any kind. Suppose I decide to move to a 100 member region, then the region wants re-founding. I don't care about the region- as it'd just be a place to put my nation in as there is no ability to be region-less.

Then I get like 737972927 TG's from the other 99 members of the region. The Region messageboards say "Sharina listen to us, we are refounding the region". I don't give a damn or care and keep logging in every 2 weeks to prevent my nation from being DEAT'ed for 28 days inactivity.

Thus, should I be ejected, I claim "Griefing!" and then what?

This is what I mean by unreasonable- 99 out of 100 people wanting a re-founding. Or a majority rule in the regions (51% or more). After all, regions are supposed to be democractic and consensusal, with the delegate voting and all that..

Although I think that Hogsweat's deletion was regrettable, I don't see any way that the moderators could have reasonably ruled any other way in this case.

They could have at least considered ViZion's suggestion for handling the situation instead of almost immediately locking the thread. I know they said no appeals, but still, ViZion had a good idea going. It was fair to Hogsweat while not breaking precedent.

while not breaking precedent.Aside from the whole "ignoring the rules" part.

So what you're saying is that re-founding is impossible if just one nation refuses to acknwoledge any communication of any kind. Suppose I decide to move to a 100 member region, then the region wants re-founding. I don't care about the region- as it'd just be a place to put my nation in as there is no ability to be region-less.

Then I get like 737972927 TG's from the other 99 members of the region. The Region messageboards say "Sharina listen to us, we are refounding the region". I don't give a damn or care and keep logging in every 2 weeks to prevent my nation from being DEAT'ed for 28 days inactivity.

Thus, should I be ejected, I claim "Griefing!" and then what?

This is what I mean by unreasonable- 99 out of 100 people wanting a re-founding. Or a majority rule in the regions (51% or more). After all, regions are supposed to be democractic and consensusal, with the delegate voting and all that..

No, that's not how this works. There is nothing saying that the delegate cannot eject nations to re-found. The rules say that a mass ejection is illegal in almost all cases. The only exceptions are if the ejector is the founder, or the ejectees are invaders.

This is quite a big mess, it seems.

I agree with Sharina about "couch-potato" nations holding back a refounding. My region, for instance, I doubt could be refounded in less than three months. Why? For previous matters, none related to refounding, I've sent out telegrams to everyone in the region.

Some nations, ones that only logged on every twenty days or so, never, ever replied to any of my TG's.

In retrospect, Hogsweat should have had a little patience and TGed everybody. He then should have waited a month, and took note of which nations replied and which didn't. To be safe, he should have sent another round of TG's, asking those who didn't reply what their opinion was and why they hadn't replied. After waiting another twenty eight days, during which time the couch potato nations would have had to log in, if those nations had not replied, he should have banned them from the region.

Then, he and everyone else could leave, and refound Haven.

In any case, apparently, in the eyes of the mods, Hogsweat's actions, rash but well intentioned, were the same as someone maliciously griefing. I suppose there's nothing we can do about his case, as Salusa has already ruled that everything is in order.

However, I don't think that doing what he did should be seen as being the same as malicious griefing, perhaps a distinction should be made, for the future.

Also, the One Stop Rule Shop really should contain all the rules, including this one. Otherwise, it's not really "one stop," is it? I can honestly say I didn't know about this rule until I learned of Hogsweat's misfortune.

However, I don't think that doing what he did should be seen as being the same as malicious griefing, perhaps a distinction should be made, for the future.

Can you think of any distinction we could make that wouldn't immediately be exploited by actual malicious griefers?

Ok, I just found this out a little bit ago... every time you eject someone from your region, you recieve this warning:

"The Nation of $nation has been ejected from $region.

Note: ejecting large numbers of nations from a region is against game rules and may cause the moderators to take action against you!"

It says that every time you eject someone... given that info, stating that it is against game rules to eject large numbers of nations from the region, and given that it is specific to no certain person (e.i. "invader", etc) now I agree w/ him being deleted, as that doesn't just say "invaders" or any specific group... it means whoever's doing the ejections... thus I have changed from disagreeing to agreeing with the mods on Hoggy recieving punishment...

Can you think of any distinction we could make that wouldn't immediately be exploited by actual malicious griefers?

It's just an idea. If I think of a way, I'll be sure to say so.

Also, I've noticed that many times it has been said "It's not an IP ban, he can come back and make another nation."

To everyone here, I ask, out of curiosity, would you?

I probably wouldn't, myself. But that's just me.

In any case, I think it would be possible to make at least a little distinction, maybe put someone's nation 'on probation' or something (I make no claim of knowing how these things actually work, so this particular idea may or may not be possible) for a certain period of time (should be a fairly substantial period of time) without deleting it.

It is possibly my two cents, but I think Hoggy should not have bothered trying to "refound" Haven and should leave it to found "HAVEN" or something similar. He can then TG everyone from Haven to go to HAVEN. If the couch potatos don't move from Haven to HAVEN, then it's their fault. Hog would have 'refounded' a region and wouldn't have to go through this mess.

Also, I've noticed that many times it has been said "It's not an IP ban, he can come back and make another nation."

To everyone here, I ask, out of curiosity, would you?

I probably wouldn't, myself. But that's just me.And this makes the deletion "unjust"? How does that scan?

In any case, I think it would be possible to make at least a little distinction, maybe put someone's nation 'on probation' or something (I make no claim of knowing how these things actually work, so this particular idea may or may not be possible) for a certain period of time (should be a fairly substantial period of time) without deleting it.What part of "Mass illegal ejections always result in deletion" is being missed here? This is a policy that has been around for roughly two years now.


It is possibly my two cents, but I think Hoggy should not have bothered trying to "refound" Haven and should leave it to found "HAVEN" or something similar. He can then TG everyone from Haven to go to HAVENThe game makes no distinction between 'Haven' and 'HAVEN'.

In an attempt to stave off people ranting and raving in totally unrelated threads and in quasi-related threads, I'm going to open this back up, with the hope that people have had their naps and have calmed down a little bit.At this point, I'm not even going to complain about the deletion of Hogsweat. What I'm highly upset about is the way that the Moderators have handled the storm.

I can respect Scolo for coming clean and explaining the reasons he deleted Hogsweat, especially for explaining his thought process for exactly why he didn't want to. However, there was no reason for this response (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9803518&postcount=13), which reads as being highly capricious. In my mind, that harbours the same place of dishonour as GMC Military Arms telling someone to "get over it." That kind of behaviour by a customer service representative would get you written up at least and perhaps fired at worst.

I understand moderating is a very difficult job, especially when you have to deal with the same arguments again and again in various stages of agitation. However, I had to answer over 100 calls a day as a call center representative and I many times had to answer the same question over and over again. Getting agitated by someone is no excuse for me mouthing off at him or her.

The game makes no distinction between 'Haven' and 'HAVEN'.

I know that, it was just an example. Naming a reigon that is similar to Haven and yet different would have solved the problems that Hog was dealing with. It would have been simplier too, since there would be no need to kick people out of the reigon.

What I'm highly upset about is the way that the Moderators have handled the storm.What do you expect? We're "fascist ayatollas", remember?

However, there was no reason for this response (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9803518&postcount=13), which reads as being highly capricious.you're joking, right?

The vast majority of "guides" written for this game are written by players. Moderators write rules, not How To guides.

In my mind, that harbours the same place of dishonour as GMC Military Arms telling someone to "get over it." That kind of behaviour by a customer service representative would get you written up at least and perhaps fired at worst.This again? Fine. I will send you a check for twice what you have paid towards my salary, GMC's salary, and Jolt's upkeep costs.

Referencing customer service is, yet another, false analogy. You aren't a customer.

However, I had to answer over 100 calls a day as a call center representative and I many times had to answer the same question over and over again. Getting agitated by someone is no excuse for me mouthing off at him or her.Once again, I'm not a customer service representative. While I can empathise with you having to say the same thing over and over again, it doesn't really apply here. You are paid to answer the same question repeatedly. I am not.

And, seriously, if all you have to complain about is me saying "So write one" and GMC saying "Get over it", then I think we're doing a fine job.

Can you think of any distinction we could make that wouldn't immediately be exploited by actual malicious griefers?

I'm no expert, but the original definition called it griefing if it happened "after invasion". Surely the game would be better served with "Non-malicious natives doing it = warning" instead of blanket "do this = DEAT"

I'm no gameplayer or NS rule-lawyer, but a lot of us do instinctively feel that this was not just or equitable. I'm not contesting the point that no rule was broken*, but it does go against the inherent feeling of fairness that many players have. Therefore, maybe there should be a discussion on how the rule can be finetuned? I can imagine a "maliciousness" criterium would help, though it is hard to determine. Alternatively, perhaps relaxing the rules for native delegates? I'm just trying to contribute here.


*Although I do think the rule is very unclear, and only because of personal experience as a delegate - I did the procedure once - I had an inkling and then only because Ballotonia told me that I couldn't just eject everyone. But that aside.

I'm no expert, but the original definition called it griefing if it happened "after invasion". Surely the game would be better served with "Non-malicious natives doing it = warning" instead of blanket "do this = DEAT"

And how would we go about determining if it was malicious or not?

And how would we go about determining if it was malicious or not?

Well, that is why I said a maliciousness criterium is hard to figure out. In some cases, such as this one, it is parently obvious though. Then, I'm just throwing up a ball here with regards to "how to change the rules" in actual implementation.

My main point was, anyway, that a lot of people feel instinctively that there is a certain unfairness in how it has been done now, and that therefore some finetuning may be in order. That isn't a very unreasonable conclusion, I think?

I understand moderating is a very difficult job, especially when you have to deal with the same arguments again and again in various stages of agitation. However, I had to answer over 100 calls a day as a call center representative and I many times had to answer the same question over and over again. Getting agitated by someone is no excuse for me mouthing off at him or her.

On the other hand, you are paid, he isn't.

Sure, it wasn't the most polite answer, but given the amount of crap these guys have to take on a day for day basis while keeping the forums as clean as they can and dealing with often insulting and demanding complaints as a voltunary service it's not hard to imagine that sometimes they won't bother to be polite.

At the end of the day they are as human as any of us here and are just as prone to anger as the rest of us. Still they have to hold themselves to a higher standard of behaviour (as we soon hear about it when they don't) then we do and they do get disaplined behind the scenes by their own people who are watching to make sure they stay in line.

Personally, I'm content with the system and I'm secure knowing I won't be deleted unless I break the rules... I have been warned in the past for breaking rules I didn't know about (posting too many messages to rally defence in my own region, it turns out invaders are very serious about rule breaking too) but I accept that moderation has to take everything into account. If a mod is getting pissy then perhaps concider being polite to them, people listen if you are polite instead of screaming "mod bias" because frankly the more they hear it the more likely they simply won't respect your point of view... and ultimately, they don't have to listen to you at all.

-snip-

This sort of brings us back to ViZion's proposal, whereby Hogsweat would be revived on the basis that he did not break the rule as posted. The rules regarding griefing would then be revised to address this particular issue more clearly. If any malicious griefer or delegate/founder who wants to re-found a region griefs, gets DEATed for it, and points to Hogsweat's case as a defense, the mods can come back and say that the rules have been since revised to cover it as an offense punishable by instant DEAT. A reasonable course of action, no? I think Knootoss has the right idea here.

Well, Iuthy, while it is not a paid service I do think moderators can make an effort to be polite. There is no way we can "make them" be polite, yes, but at least we can ask.

Politeness does not mean being less strict, or being like a personal slave or helpdesk person who is availiable 24/7 to answer self-evident stuff. However, a williness to listen and NOT call people names or, say, flame would I think be polite. I'm not saying mods are all Generalite-like flamers, but sometimes things could be worded a little less offensively. I don't think that would actually hurt anyone, IMHO.

To everyone here, I ask, out of curiosity, would you?

I was thinking the same thing myself. Personally, I would. But only becuase of the puppet I have. I have a puppet called Borman Warrior, who's about the same size. So I'd just pull a DA and make Borman Warrior Borman Empire like Decisive Action did with Communist Mississippi.

But if I didn't have that, than no; I dont think I would. I know I could start over with a new nation and say it was Borman again and all; but it's just still not the same.

Can you think of any distinction we could make that wouldn't immediately be exploited by actual malicious griefers?

Native or non native would be a good destinction, and amount of time the candidate held the UN position works too I'd think.

Native or non native would be a good destinction, and amount of time the candidate held the UN position works too I'd think.

I think that these would be good things to take into account.

My region got emptied by a Delegate who was a native and a fairly long-standing Delegate. I could use my Founder powers to wipe the banlist, but under any conceivable ruleset that lacked unanimous consent, that Delegate would have the powers (pretending that there wasn't a Founder) to refound the region. Which would obviously be a bad thing.

Politeness does not mean being less strict, or being like a personal slave or helpdesk person who is availiable 24/7 to answer self-evident stuff. However, a williness to listen and NOT call people names or, say, flame would I think be polite. I'm not saying mods are all Generalite-like flamers, but sometimes things could be worded a little less offensively. I don't think that would actually hurt anyone, IMHO.

You seem to have missed my point about treating the moderators with respect? It works both ways you see... when I make a suggestion I'm generally polite and I will make a point of showing as much respect as is due, that way it's more likely that my point of view will be listened to and addressed politely in return. This is often the case in Moderatation, however you get those people who make demands of the moderations staff, or worse yet, actively accuse them of being bais and compare them to dictators... that sort of stuck tends to make them less co-operative.

So yeah... frankly I think this whole affair is rather nasty in general, but it would have been much nicer if people had shown respect and from what I've seen I really understand why some of the moderation staff are not being too polite.

It may not seem fair that you in order to get a proper responce you need to be polite, especially if you are getting the crap someone else stirred, but at the end of the day, they have the power and the only way you can win is if they argee with you. Show some respect and you'll get some in return.

Well, Iuthy, while it is not a paid service I do think moderators can make an effort to be polite. There is no way we can "make them" be polite, yes, but at least we can ask.Terribly sorry, Knoot. Please, kick me in the teeth some more and call me a fascist.

mmk, this thread is quickly degenerating. Lemmie take a stab at the problem.

Here's the easiest way IMO:
Have Hogsweat make a new nation. (Assuming (s)he wasn't permenantly banned. Please correct me if Hogsweat was permenantly banned.) Everyone who wants to recognizes that aforementioned nation is as powerful as the old one was. Hogsweat can just ignore those who don't recognize the old power. It will just be a "name change" so to speak.

Things move on and everyone leaves at least slightly less unhappy. After all, it doesn't matter whether your old nation had 14 billion or 5 trillion people, it all depends on what people on the forum accept you have. Such as a REALLY good FT RPer could have a galaxy, while a mediocre one could only really get away with having a few systems and their NS population. (that's not to say there aren't small but good ones)


The mods can weigh the feasibility of that option however they want. If someone has something that hasn't been mentioned that should be brought forewards, please say it! I don't see why this is such a huge deal. Sure, it's a pain, but it WAS a rule violation that has been continuously enforced for the year that I've been on NS, and for some time before I came here.

I've sat and watched the mods try to be polite, even in the face of some rather nasty accusations and name-calling. They're human just like the rest of us, and like the rest of us, have limits to patience as well. I rather expect them to get as fed up with it as anyone else would after a while.

You tell me how long your patience would honestly hold out while being called biased liars, bastards, jerks, fascists, and whatever else kind of crap is getting kicked around. Then tell me just how inclined to being nice to those same folks you'd be after? Anyone who steps up and claims they'd be above it while having proved otherwise need not reply, thanks - and there's plenty of us. I believe this is what's been referred to elsewhere as a 'self-fulfilling prohpecy' of sorts. You call them rude, you push them til they are rude, then point fingers and say 'see'? Dirty pool, that. And utter crap.

You want respect and politeness, folks? Try using some yourself when initially addressing others, and then when following up. I don't buy this 'because they're in a position of authority they have to play nice but we don't' crap, or 'them first'.

Practice what you preach, or stop preaching. Not the first place I've said this, but it's becoming a rather applicable comment:

You can't claim moral high ground unless you're actually standing on it.

And for those of you who'd like to point fingers at me - fair enough. Please note I'm not claiming the moral high ground. I'm saying folks in general need to cut the hypocrisy, and if that includes myself, so be it.

Alright, there are three parts to this post. The first one is the legal analysis from a purely objective point of view, the second is my personal opinions on this case, and the third is my opinions on how this could be rectified.

Part One: Legal Matters

Salusa has spoken and that was the last nail in the coffin. “If you feel that the first appeal was unjust, you may post a final appeal via the Getting Help page. Please be sure to note in your request that this is a final appeal. The appeal will be logged where all mods and admins may see it, and it will be judged by a panel of four or more mods, including at least one Senior Game Mod or Admin. The original ruling moderator will recuse himself from this appeal, but may be the one who posts the response. Be aware that frivolous appeals may result in warnings to your nation. Most forum warnings and minor forum-bans are likely to be considered frivolous. Final appeals may take several days, so be patient.”1 Unless Max himself comes down and makes an override, it’s over. Sorry folks, but we have to shut up and get on with our lives. It’s unlikely that Hogsweat will be un-banned, and from a legal point of view the moderators followed procedure and made the ruling they should have.

Now whether the procedure itself is correct is open to debate. But that’s not the subject.

Part Two: Personal Opinion

Quite simply, the banning was unjust. Hogsweat was acting without any malicious intent and was caught up by a procedure following moderator who was acting as he should have. The rules themselves state: “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.”2

My personal opinion is that we’re seeing a split in the people on NS. We have one faction that follows this view: “<Neutron> Hogs was DEAT'ed because he broke a rule, a rule that is punishable by being deleted.”3 In other words, he broke the law, and he pays the crime. And then we have my personal view: Hogsweat unknowingly broke the rules in an attempt to re-found the region. He was unaware of the laws and figured that this was a good way, especially with all of the inactive nations that were/are in Haven.

So then we should take into account what was said in the OSRS: “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.”4

We should look at the mitigating circumstances and the nation’s history. We should look and see not the average griefer, but instead a nation that does not partake of regional play, but a nation that is an RP nation; a nation that used Haven as a Role-play community.

And look at these mitigating circumstances, Hogsweat assuredly should be unbanned.

Part Three: Resolution

So what good is all of this complaining without a fix? While it is obvious that the moderators, for whatever reason, will not reverse their ruling on the Hogsweat case, maybe the fact that an innocent, or at least well meaning, nation was caught up in the swift justice of the NS Moderation. When I noted that this situation could have been prevented by a Moderator Telegramming Hogsweat with a request to unban, I was met with this response: “<Ayatollah-Kzintosh> Theallas: And we don't do that for mass-ejectors.”5

But maybe we should. Maybe instead of saying “We don’t do that” maybe we should say “We don’t do that, but maybe because a well meaning nation got caught up in this situation, we should consider changes.”

My proposal is this, a reworking of the rules and regulations to either make perfectly clear that the punishments are indeed set in stone—as was made clear to me on #nationsates—and that the moderators do indeed have certain set “sentencing guidelines”—once again, made clear on #nationstates. And maybe the players should be allowed to see these guidelines.

Either that, or a reworking of the specific founder rules. Maybe the SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) for a mass ban/ejection should be a clearing of the ban-list, freezing the delegates/founder’s powers, and then investigating to figure out what happened; whether, as it was in this case, it is a founder going about refounding the region the wrong way, or whether it is indeed a mass greifing.

Under this system, I propose that it should become standard procedure for moderators to ask questions. If a whole swarm of invaders march in, elect a new delegate, and then leave, banning everyone, then it is obvious that this is no refounding. But if a stable delegate, asks on the message boards whether people want to refound. In that case, maybe leniency should be given because of the obvious intention of the founder.6

Those are my $.02 more like $2 actually… or maybe $200… or even… oh well, those are my thoughts. Thank you.

Oh yes, and a shoutout to the mods, who I really do think are doing a great job keeping this site operational, and clean.

Footnotes:
1: One stop rules shop: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023
2: One stop rules shop: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023
3: Irc.esper.net, #nationstates, at about 11 PM EST
4: OSRS: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023
5: Irc.Esper.net, #nationstates, at about 11 PM EST, Kzintosh, AKA Scolopendra
6: Actual quote not available due to limited logging on regional board.

And then we have my personal view: Hogsweat unknowingly broke the rules in an attempt to re-found the region. He was unaware of the laws and figured that this was a good way, especially with all of the inactive nations that were/are in Haven.You're paying how much and you still think ignorance of the law is an excuse?

You're paying how much and you still think ignorance of the law is an excuse?

As many have pointed out on #nationstates, NS =/= RL law. There are certain moral codes in society that are taught to you from birth, and have logical foundings. Crimes that cannot be undone. Here, the "crime" is easily undone with a few keystrokes.

Look, I understand that you're a bit twitchy, this has been a hot button issue and you yourself have fallen under attack. But look, if we're going to start using false analogies I can bring out my electric chair debate, okay?

As many have pointed out on #nationstates, NS =/= RL law. There are certain moral codes in society that are taught to you from birth, and have logical foundings. Crimes that cannot be undone. Here, the "crime" is easily undone with a few keystrokes.

I'm glad to know we're the criminals in your universe, since you obviously believe we comitted a 'crime' somewhere almong the line.

As many have pointed out on #nationstates, NS =/= RL law. There are certain moral codes in society that are taught to you from birth, and have logical foundings. Crimes that cannot be undone. Here, the "crime" is easily undone with a few keystrokes.

Unfortunately, a lot of the nastiness that's been getting dished around can't be undone with a few keystrokes - something I think a lot of you are missing, and continuing to add to rather than to sit back and chill for a few. The choices you're making, and the things you're saying have a good chance of sticking to you for a while. Hope some of you wil eventually appreciate the implications of that.

By the way, out of idle curiousity - where's the subject for all this? I don't believe I've seen him post here. I have seen a lot of folks assuming to post on his behalf, but he's been surprisingly absent.

Unfortunately, a lot of the nastiness that's been getting dished around can't be undone with a few keystrokes - something I think a lot of you are missing, and continuing to add to rather than to sit back and chill for a few. The choices you're making, and the things you're saying have a good chance of sticking to you for a while. Hope some of you wil eventually appreciate the implications of that.

By the way, out of idle curiousity - where's the subject for all this? I don't believe I've seen him post here. I have seen a lot of folks assuming to post on his behalf, but he's been surprisingly absent.

I think he hasn't replied because he has quit NS and refuses to RP as a new 5 million population nation after losing his nation that he has worked hard for the last 2 years.

I think it's best not to make assumptions, Sharina - after all, he's had time and inclination to post in another thread highlighting and making a big deal about his destruction. Why not one concerned solely with his situation? With everyone going so far out of their way to tell us what's right or wrong about it all, would be kinda nice to have the subject at least reply once.

It isn't as if he could possibly be unaware. The link to this was posted in the thread he was active in.


EDIT: Thank you so much for idly dismissing all the rest of what I mentioned earlier though, with your appeal for pity.

I think it's best not to make assumptions, Sharina - after all, he's had time and inclination to post in another thread highlighting and making a big deal about his destruction. Why not one concerned solely with his situation? With everyone going so far out of their way to tell us what's right or wrong about it all, would be kinda nice to have the subject at least reply once.

It isn't as if he could possibly be unaware. The link to this was posted in the thread he was active in.


EDIT: Thank you so much for idly dismissing all the rest of what I mentioned earlier though, with your appeal for pity.

I was only answering your question regarding "where is the subject of this discussion". That's all.

Besides, I do recall reading in Hogsweat's self-destruction RP, he OOC'ly stated that he doesn't want to RP as a new puny nation after all the effort he put in his "real" nation. Its like what the other guy in here said about a 3000 piece puzzle- you got 2900 pieces down then someone ruins it, then that puzzle-solver person is unlikely to try again unless he's one of these perfectionists that must finish everything or every goal in life.

That aside, I have heard Sarzonia and Praetonia quit NS because of this Hogsweat thing. This means NS just lost 2 good quality RP'ers. Who's the next high quality RP'er to quit NS? This will usher NS into a new age where high quality RP'ers become even more rare, and the Age of Increased n00bs and n00klets will begin. :(

I think it's best not to make assumptions... -snip-

It wasn't an assumption, Nathi. Sharina's dead on there.

By the way, I'm glad to see this was unlocked. It's a step in the right direction.

It's an assumption until Hogs comes on and states things for himself. I wasn't aware he needed so many spokespersons, Paci.

As for other people quitting over this? Their choice, their problem, not gonna bother with it, and certainly not going to pity them for it.

I think we're doing a fine job.

You seriously believe you are?

I wasn't aware he needed so many spokespersons, Paci.

Oh, sorry - I wasn't aware the mods needed a lap dog.

Seriously, Nathi, if you're going to dish out the insults, the ridicule and the generally annoying phrasing, you're going to get some right back. As has been the case throughout this topic.

This will usher NS into a new age where high quality RP'ers become even more rare, and the Age of Increased n00bs and n00klets will begin. :(

People said that when Demoness left. It wasn't true then, either.

I'm sorry you seem incapable of handling facts, rather picking and choosing what you do and don't respond to, Paci - as well as having difficulty keeping your temper. Please read back a few posts and see if there's something of content you disagree with.

Lap dog indeed. I've been arguing for fair application of the rules across the board, and for better behaviour from people on all sides of this. I hardly see where that makes me a lap dog. The fact is you disagree, and it seems easier for you to dismiss any arguments that don't fall in with yours as 'sucking up' rather than anything that might possibly be rational.

Namecalling only weakens your arguments, Paci. As do obvious fallacies in your comments.

Look...I don't know Hogsweat, never even roleplayed with him...in fact, I don't know any of you, and I probably shouldn't even be posting, but I will anyway-just to be a nuisance.

We're talking about eight or nine people who think Hogsweat is being done over here...not just one. And some valid points have been made too-it's unfair to enforce rules that aren't written. That's abuse of the system. All this fuss could be solved so easily, and yet you, the moderators, continue to carry this on. There's a simple solution...let him back. Would that be so difficult?

People said that when Demoness left. It wasn't true then, either.

Well, I probably wasn't around at that time, and I didn't know Demoness. However, I have read Hogsweat, Praetonia and Sarzonia's RP's. They were pretty good, and its easy to see or assume that with three major RP'ers quitting, more may follow.

Okay, I'm sorry, but this is just getting stupid.

GMC, if my posts are trolling, then Nathi's certainly qualify as flamebaiting.

And some valid points have been made too-it's unfair to enforce rules that aren't written. That's abuse of the system. All this fuss could be solved so easily, and yet you, the moderators, continue to carry this on. There's a simple solution...let him back. Would that be so difficult?

Site FAQ, final section:

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.

Delegate ejection warning that appears in bright red text:

"The Nation of $nation has been ejected from $region.

Note: ejecting large numbers of nations from a region is against game rules and may cause the moderators to take action against you!"

It's not an unwritten rule. And utter capitulation is not a solution, it's a cop-out.

The region had no founder, and Hogsweat was the native delegate. The rules aren't specific enough, they're too vague. Why are you so eager to keep the guy from getting his nation back anyway? We're talking about somebody whose put a lot of painstaking time and effort into the Nationstates community...can't you show some ability to compromise? Letting him have his nation back doesn't harm or anger anybody. It doesn't do anything except solve the problem at hand...I think this is a case of the moderation staff taking themselves way too seriously.

Well, Pacitalia, I think the n00bs have made another great incursion anyway. With regard to respect being a two-way road, well, there you are. I understand that voluntary supervisors would feel demeaned by people telling them that they are Chekhists plucking unsuspecting players off to Siberia simply on a whim. That written, the exodus of skilled RPers certainly ought to indicate something went wrong.

I noticed something similar that had occurred on another site with the same result. There were over-reactions on both sides, both sides acted precipitously, but the noticeable result was a marked degradation of that site after that fact.

I also remember several incidents on I.I. that had to be solved by players rather than by moderators despite the notable need for their presence. While I understand it's best for players to be allowed to do their thing and that moderators can't be on twenty-four hours a day, three-hundred and sixty-five (or sixty-six) days a year, those incidents seemed more injurious to the game than the effect of the handling of this situation.

Sure, moderators are human, yes, things have become over-wrought, yes, it's understandable that people will inevitably allow their stress to show in their replies, but if you take the job of supervisor, which is effectively what the moderators are, you will have to expect disgruntled workers if things aren't fully explained and that certain actions are seen as high-handed. Is this demanding more of the moderators than what is expected from the players? Yes, but then since the moderators have accepted a leadership position, they have an unspoken duty to maintain a higher standard than those over whom they have rather great powers.

Like respect, accountability is a two-way road.

People said that when Demoness left. It wasn't true then, either.
I would sincerely have to disagree with you there.

The region had no founder, and Hogsweat was the native delegate. The rules aren't specific enough, they're too vague. Why are you so eager to keep the guy from getting his nation back anyway? We're talking about somebody whose put a lot of painstaking time and effort into the Nationstates community...can't you show some ability to compromise?

Read basically every page in this topic. Most mods have already clearly stated they couldn't care less about it because it "the rules were broken".

It doesn't do anything except solve the problem at hand...I think this is a case of the moderation staff taking themselves way too seriously.

Overturning the rules just because we like the guy does not solve anything. The rules are absolutely clear that mass ejections are illegal for delegates and the game even advises them of this during ejections.

We are not 'eager' to prevent Hogsweat getting his nation back, we are simply enforcing the same rules everyone else in the game must abide by. You are not suggesting a compromise, you are suggesting we do what you say despite that dozens of others deleted for the same reason would scream blue murder about such an incredibly biased decision on our part.

This appeal has been across most of the moderation staff including the site admin; it has been determined that Procedure was followed and the deletion should stand. Hogsweat is free to return with a new nation, claim his old population and carry on, something that other high-profile RPers who've been deleted in the past like Whittier have had no trouble doing.

Okay, I'm sorry, but this is just getting stupid.

GMC, if my posts are trolling, then Nathi's certainly qualify as flamebaiting.

GMC - could I please get an answer on this? It sure seems like you're ignoring me now. Which, I hope you're not, cos that's not going to help anything.

Overturning the rules just because we like the guy does not solve anything. The rules are absolutely clear that mass ejections are illegal for delegates and the game even advises them of this during ejections.

Surely you must consider the special circumstances that encompass this situation. There was no founder...in actuality, Hogsweat was the only remaining governing body in the region. It's not so much about liking the guy as it is realizing that this was a misunderstanding unfairly blown out of proportion.

We are not 'eager' to prevent Hogsweat getting his nation back, we are simply enforcing the same rules everyone else in the game must abide by. You are not suggesting a compromise, you are suggesting we do what you say despite that dozens of others deleted for the same reason would scream blue murder about such an incredibly biased decision on our part.

Your job is to judge things case-by-case. No two cases are alike. You should undertstand the circumstances of this particular case...this isn't another routine griefing. This is an accident-an accident that was forgiven by the nations griefed. An accident that should be over-turned.

This appeal has been across most of the moderation staff including the site admin; it has been determined that Procedure was followed and the deletion should stand. Hogsweat is free to return with a new nation, claim his old population and carry on, something that other high-profile RPers who've been deleted in the past like Whittier have had no trouble doing.

I suppose it's no use. The moderation staff could serve to be a touch more objective in their decisions. Obviously the Nationstates populace is up in arms over this deletion; that alone should tell you you're not doing something right. Thanks for your time and responses, they're appreciated.

We've answered the questions. We've addressed the concerns.

Please realize that there is nothing special about this situation. Perhaps the most noteworthy thing about this is that several of the mods like Hogsweat and didn't want to do this, but did so anyway because otherwise they'd be acting out of bias.

This case is closed, and I really don't want to hear any more of this. I've seen lots of sniping on all sides. If I see anymore, you can expect a forum ban and a warning.