NationStates Jolt Archive

# 4 hours ago: The Fiefdom of Xiphosia ceased to exist.
# 4 hours ago: The Community of Urban freeland ceased to exist.
# 4 hours ago: The Republic of Electron Blue ceased to exist.
# 4 hours ago: The Borderlands of Cashoslovakia ceased to exist.

That's what happened on my RMB. They were all deleted for "griefing". All because we kicked out Steampunk from Troika.

However, I am Steampunk. The whole thing was a training mission for the army we're hoping to form. I'm also Electron Blue.

So I do believe therre's been a misunderstanding.

Our modly telepathy kits haven't arrived, so we are limited merely to game rules. If you eject the sole member of a region, it's griefing. Period. Punishment for which is deletion of participants.

Consider yourself trained in Invasion Rules.

Well if these nations are gone forever, I have to ask another point (why start another thread?):

Are we perma-banned from the U.N?

Cashoslovakia asked me to relay this message:

"I'm willing to accept the ban as Cashoslovakia. I take full blame for what happened. I ask though that you unban the other 3 as they aren't directly responsible for my "griefing" (which in my opinion is nonsense in this context)of Electron Blue's/The Noble Men's puppet. I didn't tell them before hand. Therefore, I am the only one that should be held responsible."

Ask her yourself if you don't believe me.

If you're going to quit, then quit. Knock it off with these inane rants. Should we survey the entire region every time somebody posts spam to see if the majority don't care? Should we have to wait for every inactive nation to report in before we can decide a griefing?

Since May 11 (the last Mod Olymics and the date the logs were reset), there have been 103241 moderator actions, not counting forum activity. It's now October 29. That's 171 days, or over 600 mod actions/day. Some of those actions take a minute or less, depending on how cooperative the servers are being. Others can take several hours or even days. For the past several months, there have been (on average) three active GMs on any given day. Exactly how much of our lives are you asking us to give up so that you don't occasionally get in a pissy mood?

Follow through on that casual threat to spam Moderation and the Getting Help page, and you WILL see "pissy". I've had enough from you.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

Francos Spain...Hogsweat...Magnetic Island...now you people. This is not only insane, it's stupid.

I think I'm quitting NS and calling for another mass exodus. Forget our missions and everything. Either the moderators redefine griefing rules or I'll IP track them down and torture them to death. Well, ok, maybe not. But I want a fair redefinition that states clearly that all griefing is illegal, whether with or without the nations' consent, and whether done by a Founder or a UN Delegate; or that griefing is legal with the natives' consent but not without; or whatever. The current rules are blanket assumptions and completely unfair. If you don't listen to me this way, maybe I should flood the modcentre with Getting Help reports and spam the Moderation forum. I might get deleted, yeah, but at least I'll get my point across. :rolleyes:

And seriously, mods! You 'couldn't tell' that the native founder was a puppet of one of the 'invaders'? Unless TNM logged into them all on different computers, and used different e-mail addresses for all of them, you can kind of tell that they're the same person! Like, how clear do you need us to make things?! :-/




Umm...Francos Spain was deleted for inactivity, not for griefing..

And seriously..it's a game. Don't get so worked up over it.

Umm...Francos Spain was deleted for inactivity, not for griefing..

And seriously..it's a game. Don't get so worked up over it.
That's not what I mean. He wasn't deleted at all for griefing where other people were. More, he was actually defended by the moderators. :confused:

From what I remember Franco the player died. 30 days later his nation was deleted with an obituary from his freind.

I suggest you don't use him as an example.

Ever again

Yeah, that's because he was internally elected, got into power through endo swapping. That gave him up to 40% (unoffical number there) to kick out..

Yeah, that's because he was internally elected, got into power through endo swapping. That gave him up to 40% (unoffical number there) to kick out..
Well, yes, but one of the other UN delegates I mentioned was also internally elected and "griefed" the region with the consent of the natives... and the other one was (a puppet of) one of the natives...This is highly illogical.

Czar, being a victim of the Stupid Griefing Rules, can I ask you to stay on? By spamming the GHP you will prove nothing really. Stay, to defend those who have fallen and those who will fall.

You have taken it upon yourself to become the Champion of Griefing Reform. Don't act like an annoying little douchebag, it can only harm your cause. Instead, go to the OSRS, read all the griefing rules and draft a better, more watertight rule. Maybe it will get accepted, maybe you'll get the Moddies thinking to the degree where they write even better rules than what you proposed. The worst that could happen is a "NO".

You have taken the torch. Don't burn yourself with it.

Griefing is griefing, doesn't matter if it is done with permission, if it's done by the founder's puppet...you think they have time to do all that kind research, keep the site a decent place and have a life outside NS still?

I've been working with these rules ever since they were introduced, and been in plenty situations where these rules applied to, but never had any problem following them. Ask up my record, you won't find a thing. There's a big bright red warning if you kick more than 2 or 3 nations which should have given a hint to those who got in trouble for mass griefing. And those who want to start up an army will definatly have to learn the rules, trainings missions also need to follow these rules. Want to be able to kick "natives"? Go play in one of the warzones.

Here's a little extract from the OSRS:

Founders versus Delegates: Founders have a given set of powers, which include the ability to eject any and all nations without penalty, set a password without distributing it, clear spam from the Regional Messageboard, and deny access to the Regional Controls. These abilities reside with the Founder nation only - they may not be shared with the Delegate, with other puppet nations of the same player, or with other players.

Delegates may (if given access to the Regional Controls) do many of the same tasks as the Founder, but they are not permitted to empty the region, clear spam, or turn off Regional Controls. Delegates do NOT gain founder rights on the death or absence of the Founder. If a Delegate ejects a large group of nations (typically more than 40% for Native Delegates or 10% for Invaders), they can be considered a griefer and will be deleted.

From this, combined with the Mod decisions of this thread, would I be wrong in saying a Founder can grief all (s)he wants, but cannot be griefed even with his/her permission?

From this, combined with the Mod decisions of this thread, would I be wrong in saying a Founder can grief all (s)he wants, but cannot be griefed even with his/her permission?The Founder made the region; it's the Founder's region to do with what she pleases. The Founder cannot be griefed (even with his/her permission) because we don't have the time to ascertain permission issues in every single griefing case, oftentimes the "evidence" of "permission" (such as telegrams) ends up getting deleted by users, and I can say without hesitation that the "we had permission" excuse has been used before when it was just a bold-faced lie.

So, yes, that's pretty much what we've been saying from the start. Good job.

Yup, getting there Noble, founder nation can grief his own region, but can't give others permission to do so.

The Founder made the region; it's the Founder's region to do with what she pleases. The Founder cannot be griefed (even with his/her permission) because we don't have the time to ascertain permission issues in every single griefing case, oftentimes the "evidence" of "permission" (such as telegrams) ends up getting deleted by users, and I can say without hesitation that the "we had permission" excuse has been used before when it was just a bold-faced lie.

So, yes, that's pretty much what we've been saying from the start. Good job.

Just to let you know, it's true in this case.

In case you were implying it wasn't.

Just to let you know, it's true in this case.

In case you were implying it wasn't.I'm sure you're telling the truth. Well... not sure, but I have no reason to disbelieve you and for some reason I'm still an idealistically trusting guy. Calm down.

To be honest, though, it doesn't matter whether it is or isn't.

I'm sure you're telling the truth. Well... not sure, but I have no reason to disbelieve you and for some reason I'm still an idealistically trusting guy. Calm down.

Yay!

And I am calm. Merely annoyed.

To be honest, though, it doesn't matter whether it is or isn't.

Hmm...seems we aren't going to resolve this. Can we at least agree that the Griefing rules need redefined to prevent this (and every other griefing-related incident) from happening again?

Also, since I wasn't answered the first time, can I still have a U.N nation?

# 4 hours ago: The Fiefdom of Xiphosia ceased to exist.
# 4 hours ago: The Community of Urban freeland ceased to exist.
# 4 hours ago: The Republic of Electron Blue ceased to exist.
# 4 hours ago: The Borderlands of Cashoslovakia ceased to exist.

That's what happened on my RMB. They were all deleted for "griefing". All because we kicked out Steampunk from Troika.

However, I am Steampunk. The whole thing was a training mission for the army we're hoping to form. I'm also Electron Blue.

So I do believe therre's been a misunderstanding.


We've, of course, never seen griefing actions where a group of nations come in, eject everyone, then leave the region.

Hmm...seems we aren't going to resolve this. Can we at least agree that the Griefing rules need redefined to prevent this (and every other griefing-related incident) from happening again?

Um, when nations perform precisely the tactics that are defined as griefing.... and then are punished precisely as we punish griefers... there seems to be no need to redefine griefing.

What it seems is that people would rather throw the griefing rules out, and I don't see that happening.

So.... don't grief?

Um, when nations perform precisely the tactics that are defined as griefing.... and then are punished precisely as we punish griefers... there seems to be no need to redefine griefing.

What it seems is that people would rather throw the griefing rules out, and I don't see that happening.

So.... don't grief?

Just because it looks like a bull doesn't change the fact it's a cow with big horns stuck to it's head.

I think the whole permission thing has to be considered in this case.

But hey, i'm just the person who not only gave permission, but also participated in my own downfall voluntarily.

Just because it looks like a bull doesn't change the fact it's a cow with big horns stuck to it's head.

I think the whole permission thing has to be considered in this case.

But hey, i'm just the person who not only gave permission, but also participated in my own downfall voluntarily.


No, see, false argument.

If you perform the actions which are defined as griefing, it is griefing. The rules do not change for one set of people simply because they don't feel that they apply to them.

Yes, I see the distinction that you are trying to make, but we do not have two sets of rules for the same action.

And I am calm. Merely annoyed.
Sorry 'bout that.

Hmm...seems we aren't going to resolve this.
Probably not.

Can we at least agree that the Griefing rules need redefined to prevent this (and every other griefing-related incident) from happening again?
I'm going to speak from experience here: any rule refinement solves some extant problems, fails to address other extant problems, and generates more extant problems. No rule revision will "prevent this (and every other griefing-related incident) from happening again." You've come across something that other people have been smacked for before. You're not the first case and you'll certainly not be the last.

Also, since I wasn't answered the first time, can I still have a U.N nation?
Only one, but ya.

Maybe this thread should be locked, and showcased on the secret mod-only forum as a perfect example of the naïve stupidity of us mortals in thinking the moderators' job was actually to listen to what they are saying and try to come to a compromise between the various disputing groups. :rolleyes:

For anyone who does not understand the point of this post, it is sarcasm and not intended as a flame. Thank you for wasting a few moments of your precious time that you need for processing the 600 mod tasks per day.

Maybe this thread should be locked, and showcased on the secret mod-only forum as a perfect example of the naïve stupidity of us mortals in thinking the moderators' job was actually to listen to what they are saying and try to come to a compromise between the various disputing groups. :rolleyes:

For anyone who does not understand the point of this post, it is sarcasm and not intended as a flame. Thank you for wasting a few moments of your precious time that you need for processing the 600 mod tasks per day.And thank you for being so helpful. Really, it's people like you that make our jobs so absolutely delightful.

Honestly. We don't need your sarcasm here--it helps no one, certainly not yourself. Knock it off.

I'm going to speak from experience here: any rule refinement solves some extant problems, fails to address other extant problems, and generates more extant problems. No rule revision will "prevent this (and every other griefing-related incident) from happening again." You've come across something that other people have been smacked for before. You're not the first case and you'll certainly not be the last.

Of course problems will arise. I'm not saying they wont. But maybe less will arise. We can but hope. Even adding in a line "You cannot eject natives, even with their permission" (or something like that) could at least stop this from happening again.

On a related issue, the OSRS links to this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=301703) when dealing with Griefing. Is it just me, or is this guide a bit fuzzy around the edges?

Only one, but ya.

Some good news at least.

Maybe this thread should be locked, and showcased on the secret mod-only forum as a perfect example of the naïve stupidity of us mortals in thinking the moderators' job was actually to listen to what they are saying and try to come to a compromise between the various disputing groups. :rolleyes:

For anyone who does not understand the point of this post, it is sarcasm and not intended as a flame. Thank you for wasting a few moments of your precious time that you need for processing the 600 mod tasks per day.

Hey mate, your definition of moderator is technically correct; a moderator does try to make compromise.

However, these are actually Mods. Capital letter, one syllable. Their job is to merely enforce the rules.

And what did I say to you about not annoying the Mods? Oh, yeah, it was:

Don't.

Of course problems will arise. I'm not saying they wont. But maybe less will arise. We can but hope. Even adding in a line "You cannot eject natives, even with their permission" (or something like that) could at least stop this from happening again.
Problem is, if we do that (adding in the line), we start falling into the problem of "anything we don't explicitly say you can't do you can," and as you can probably tell this site has enough rules lawyers as is. As it's currently written, it speaks in absolutes and rather clearly has the tone of a blanket statement, which is what's intended. The less specifics to detract from the "This Is Not Done" message, the better.

As for this, it's happened before and despite any change we make (short of just making region-clearing not griefing, which would be a huge mistake) it'll happen again because someone won't read the rules--even a hypothetical perfectly-crafted 100%-effective 0%-false-positive set--do something and get blindsided. At which point they'll post, like here, and suggest changes, like here, and be debated... like here.

Not to trivialize what's happened, but I've seen it before. Lots. Under every iteration of rules we've had. It's just how it goes.

-snip-

So in other words, we're stuck with what we have unless a master of rule-craft comes along and makes the best rules ever. Dammit.

Either that or make ANY ejections not done by a Founder/Internally Elected Delegate illegal. No arseing around with 10%, 40%, is (s)he native? et cetera.

So if some guy manages to grab delegacy through endo swapping he'd be an internally elected delegate...he'd be allowed to kick all natives according to your new rules?

And did you think of all the invaders who won't agree to it? They can't defend themselves. And you'd still have to figure out the natives stuff to determine the delegate's position.

So if some guy manages to grab delegacy through endo swapping he'd be an internally elected delegate...he'd be allowed to kick all natives according to your new rules?

And did you think of all the invaders who won't agree to it? They can't defend themselves. And you'd still have to figure out the natives stuff to determine the delegate's position.

Exactly. That point was made to show the unlikelyhood of such a thing happening. Sorry I didn't make that clearer.

another way to go is to remove Invasions. thus any unusal percentage of kicking of anyone out of the region (say more than 3 nations/day) automatically falls under Griefing.

Hey, since nothing is gonna get resolved today, maybe we should close this thread down.

Cash, Urban, Xip and Electron ain't coming back. No matter what.

another way to go is to remove Invasions. thus any unusal percentage of kicking of anyone out of the region (say more than 3 nations/day) automatically falls under Griefing.

Even the Founder?

Even the Founder?Possilby. Asking for clearer rules sometimes means removing of what was once acceptable. The best advice for preventing unfortunate Deats, would be to ask the mods if a proposed action is acceptable first.

Hey, since nothing is gonna get resolved today, maybe we should close this thread down.Up to you. I don't do Invasions so I'm not really clear on the fine line. (don't bother explaining it either, I don't do Invastions and I'm not a founder (and I pity the region that has me as a delegate.) :p

the Refounding clause took a while to hash out, as do all changes to the OSRS. closing the thread may seem like the mods saying a 'that's that' ruling. if you feel some sort of clarification is needed, it might help to write something up so that 1) it gives the mods an idea of what you are proposing, 2) you get feedback pertinent to your ideas. 3) saves the mods time by writing something up (if needed.)

Up to you. I don't do Invasions so I'm not really clear on the fine line. (don't bother explaining it either, I don't do Invastions and I'm not a founder (and I pity the region that has me as a delegate.) :p

the Refounding clause took a while to hash out, as do all changes to the OSRS. closing the thread may seem like the mods saying a 'that's that' ruling. if you feel some sort of clarification is needed, it might help to write something up so that 1) it gives the mods an idea of what you are proposing, 2) you get feedback pertinent to your ideas. 3) saves the mods time by writing something up (if needed.)

I think a new thread would be best.

I think everything would be a LOT better if someone actually had to REPORT these kinds of pseudo-violations to get anyone deleted. (I'm assuming that the Mods were automatically notified by an automated system that too many natives were ejected, nobody would have reported this.) If nobody reports it, then nobody was bothered enough to care that the rules were being bent.

As a footnote, it reads a lot like the Hogsweat controversy, except that Electron Blue / Steampunk doesn't have the kind of popularity as Hogsweat, thus the lack of widespread outrage over the deletion.

So it's okay to kill a poor man with no family who doesn't know anyone, since it wouldn't bother anyone?

Also, not everyone knows how to report griefings and just like griefers don't always know that what they do is illegal, it's the same with those who are getting griefed.

I think everything would be a LOT better if someone actually had to REPORT these kinds of pseudo-violations to get anyone deleted.Police can step in when they see a crime without waiting for an emergency dispatch. We don't need to have things reported to act.

The best way to avoid these kinds of problems is to not break the rules. We've had people ask before if they could engage in mock-griefing for training purposes, and the answer has always been no.

As a footnote, it reads a lot like the Hogsweat controversy, except that Electron Blue / Steampunk doesn't have the kind of popularity as Hogsweat, thus the lack of widespread outrage over the deletion.Yeah, because that outrage accomplished so much.

That's not what I mean. He wasn't deleted at all for griefing where other people were. More, he was actually defended by the moderators. :confused:

One of my puppets was actually ejected by Franco's Spain (the name probably did it) so I dont like him but As I remember, when he ejected nations, he ejected only a small number of nations at a time, which means he could never have ejected 40% or more nations at the same time(not even in a week with such a big region) so that is probably the reason he was never deleted for griefing.
In Hogsweats case and the case discussed here, the perpetrator ejected(or tried to) 100% of the region which is as I recall the very reason why they got punished.

That 40% ejections (and keep in mind it's unofficial, try and stay under it to be safe, ask in case of doubt) goes in total, not per day or per week.

That 40% ejections (and keep in mind it's unofficial, try and stay under it to be safe, ask in case of doubt) goes in total, not per day or per week.
Yes, but consider how ungodly difficult it would be to reach that number in a feeder, where new nations are being constantly created. Hence Francos Spain would have been pretty safe.

Yeah, I know...was there through the whole thing, got kicked myself, more than once...grrr..