NationStates Jolt Archive

Moderators of NationStates:

Last night, my nation of over 19 months, North Western Kentucky, was deleted due to a rule infraction.

The ruling:
It's called, "Using the Mods as a Weapon." You see, when you tell someone else to report a minor infraction because you think it will get a founder nation deleted, so that you can then take over their region without opposition, it's malicious and it's dishonest.

"report that email you got from hydromania -- recruiting from private regions is bannable -- keep the email if you still hav it and report to the mods with that message -- if you didnt then youve got a problem but report him anyway -- itll get him dleted -- then the NSSP is founderless -- we go in with a few UN nation and we end their little charade"

We don't like being used to accomplish your invasions for you, and clearly, the reason you were encouraging Uddingston to report was NOT because a rule had been broken, but because you were looking for an advantage. It's underhanded , and it's against the rules.
I understand my grounds for deletion, what I said should not have been said. But I did. And here I am now.

I contend my deletion on the grounds that just because it would benefit me for a nation to be deleted, and because that nation did rule break and has the grounds to be deleted, doesn't mean I should be deleted for observering and/or exploiting it.

This is called using the Mods. I understand that completely. But I reported the nation Hydromania on the grounds that it had sent recruitment messages to members of the NationStates Communist Party.

As per the rules and regulation posted in this, the Moderator Area:

Spam Telegrams:
When you move out into another region (that isn't a feeder of lazarus), receiving recruitment telegrams is illegal, as is region recruitment in a regions' Message Board. This needs to be reported in the Getting Help page.

I soon sent the now in question telegram to Uddingston. And soon after my primary nation was deleted.

The deletion of this nation would indeed have helped should an invasion have occurred. But the primary reason the nation was reported for recruiting from a private region, which is against the rules. But as my Moderator response said, you the NS Moderators do not like to aid invasions. I agree with that. But the nation Hydromania had broken the rules, and was reported. Yes it would have helped an invasion, but that would have been just a "bonus" for that nation's deletion.

I see no reason for why my nation should be deleted for reporting a nation breaking the rules. I did see an opportunity for an invasion, but the only purpose for my reporting the infraction was to inform the Moderators of it.

I would also like to take the time to make an appeal for the nation Uddingston, the nation I telegramed the in question message. They did nothing in all this, I was the one who messaged them that stupid, stupid telegram. I'm sorry they had to get involved in all this.

Thank you for taking the time to read this long appeal.


P.S.: I request that no matter the outcome of this process, the NationStates Socialist Party ought to be warned about the recruitment messages. We at the NationStates Communist Party suspect that one rouge ex-member of our own region is working against us and is sending most of the Telegrams that our members recieve. I request an IP check between the people of the NationStates Socialist Party, the people of European Federation, and any folks who send us recruitment telegrams in the future, which you can be sure will continue to be reported.

itll get him dleted -- then the NSSP is founderless -- we go in with a few UN nation and we end their little charade

Intent matters. The reason it was reported was not because it was spam, but because you hoped we would eliminate an obstacle to your invasion... and honestly, it was *not* severe enough to warrant the deletion of the spamming nation.

We don't delete nations for *receiving* telegrams with illegal advice. When they *act* on that advice, it's a different matter. The two of you knowingly attempted to use us to get a potential problem out of your way. That's why you were both deleted, and why your appeal has been denied.

P.S. "The world contains 117,902 nations in 14,334 regions," and we're not going to babysit yours. If you have problems with recruitment spammers, feel free to report them. Include a case history if you want, though I doubt we'll make a major effort to track down IPs of recruitment spammers without major extenuating circumstances.

I am confused as to what is meant by:

We don't delete nations for *receiving* telegrams with illegal advice. When they *act* on that advice, it's a different matter.

If possible could you please explain that further?

Thank you.

But I understand otherwise as to why my nation was deleted.

Thank you both of you for your quick response and help on the matter, even though I am very disappointed as to the outcome.

We don't delete nations for *receiving* telegrams with illegal advice. When they *act* on that advice, it's a different matter. The two of you knowingly attempted to use us to get a potential problem out of your way. That's why you were both deleted, and why your appeal has been denied.

P.S. "The world contains 117,902 nations in 14,334 regions," and we're not going to babysit yours. If you have problems with recruitment spammers, feel free to report them. Include a case history if you want, though I doubt we'll make a major effort to track down IPs of recruitment spammers without major extenuating circumstances.

Don't even try to say that you guys don't take a persons/nations history into consideration.....

All our region is asking for is protection from this person who only wants to harass us. Not acting against this person in the future (I can promise you that this is not the last you will hear of this harassment) is totally unfair to our entire region, and is only pushing us to act against him ourselves.

Please, just pop in and inform their region about the rule against recruitment messages. You have no problem popping into our regionand deleting our members, why not pop into theirs and ask them to play nice just to shut us up?

Mods, if I may, I voice an objection to your decision. If the message sent by North Western Kentucky truly warrants his nation's deletion, then though I do not agree with this action, I guess that's the way it goes.
However, I take extreme offense at the deletion of Uddingston. As you all may well realize, our region has had problems in the past with a certain member of the spamming region, but on our own forums, we voted to basically ignore those people, not to invade or harass, just simply to report their spams to you mods. Our policy is not to stir up any hornet's nests, but nations are certainly within their rights to report other nations which continue to spam without any provocation. Therefore, you have no means of knowing of whether Uddingston reported spam at the direction of NWK, or as per our Party policy. Uddingston should be immediately reinstated.
I must regretfully agree with you on NWK's deletion, but the deletion of Uddingston is unfair. Waht is a mod? It's short for moderator. What does a moderator do? Moderation. What is the definition of moderation? Fair and impartial implementation of established rules.

Uddingston has committed no crime.

With all due respect,
Pavel Ivanovich Krochenko
General Secretary of the NationStates Communist Party

Thank you for the definition of our jobs.

We don't make our decisions based on your offsite policies -- we make them according to the rules set out in the TOS, the FAQ, and the One Stop Rules Shop.

Bias shows in the assumption that Hydromana was not warned for spamming, and in the general tenor of the remarks made by Communist Italy. We've never said we DON'T take prior behavior into account -- in fact, we do and make no bones about it. If you misbehave repeatedly under multiple nations, you lose the privilege of coming here.

Since it was a fair and impartial decision (to whit, the nation was reported by Uddingston after Uddingston was directed to by NWK, for the stated purpose of removing the founder of another region to make invasion easier), neither will be restored.

We don't delete nations for *receiving* telegrams with illegal advice. When they *act* on that advice, it's a different matter.

Barring the other posts, would it at all be possible that I could get clarification of this post?

I'm still confused as to what it means.

Thank you in advance.

Thank you for the definition of our jobs.
You're welcome, and thank you for your snide mocking of my post.

(to whit, the nation was reported by Uddingston after Uddingston was directed to by NWK, for the stated purpose of removing the founder of another region to make invasion easier)
Again, where is your proof? If you can produce for the viewing of all here actual proof that Uddingston acted upon NWK's command, then bring it into the light! He may very well have acted upon our Party's internal directive. I understand, the rules of the game NS supercede any Party rules, but I demand an offer of proof. Otherwise, you are just godmodding.

And learn how to spell "wit", lest you be considered a half of one. (If I get banned for that gem, you really have thin skin.) :)

And learn how to spell "wit", lest you be considered a half of one. (If I get banned for that gem, you really have thin skin.) :)You fail at vocabulary:

Main Entry: whit (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/whit)
Pronunciation: 'hwit, 'wit
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, probably alteration of wiht, wight creature, thing -- more at WIGHT
: the smallest part or particle imaginable : BIT <what some people will do for a whit of publicity -- Patrick Quinn>

wit
n.
The natural ability to perceive and understand; intelligence.

Keenness and quickness of perception or discernment; ingenuity. Often used in the plural: living by one's wits.
wits Sound mental faculties; sanity: scared out of my wits.

The ability to perceive and express in an ingeniously humorous manner the relationship between seemingly incongruous or disparate things.
One noted for this ability, especially one skilled in repartee.
A person of exceptional intelligence.

Idioms:
at (one's) wits' end
At the limit of one's mental resources; utterly at a loss.
have/keep (one's) wits about (one)
To remain alert or calm, especially in a crisis.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=wit

You fail at knowing that some words have multiple spellings.... technically, both of you fail at that.

You fail at knowing that some words have multiple spellings.... technically, both of you fail at that.

You fail at knowing formal and informal uses are different things. You also fail at banana Hiroshima tennis television.

Now, this isn't the whine about grammar forum, so back to the matter at hand, please.

You're welcome, and thank you for your snide mocking of my post.


Again, where is your proof? If you can produce for the viewing of all here actual proof that Uddingston acted upon NWK's command, then bring it into the light! He may very well have acted upon our Party's internal directive. I understand, the rules of the game NS supercede any Party rules, but I demand an offer of proof. Otherwise, you are just godmodding.

And learn how to spell "wit", lest you be considered a half of one. (If I get banned for that gem, you really have thin skin.) :)


The proof was posted above by Andorran Patriots himself -- his own telegram. Uddington's GHP request was made after he received the telegram. (time stamps, you know?)

Nice. Flamebait a moderator and dare them to call you on it.

wit
n.
The natural ability to perceive and understand; intelligence.

Keenness and quickness of perception or discernment; ingenuity. Often used in the plural: living by one's wits.
wits Sound mental faculties; sanity: scared out of my wits.

The ability to perceive and express in an ingeniously humorous manner the relationship between seemingly incongruous or disparate things.
One noted for this ability, especially one skilled in repartee.
A person of exceptional intelligence.

Idioms:
at (one's) wits' end
At the limit of one's mental resources; utterly at a loss.
have/keep (one's) wits about (one)
To remain alert or calm, especially in a crisis.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=wit

You fail at knowing that some words have multiple spellings.... technically, both of you fail at that.

Communist Italy, I'm not sure where your example of "to whit" or "to wit" is? By the way, both of you -- nice job at misdirection by attacking my grammar when you don't like the answers to your question.