NationStates Jolt Archive

I must say, I agree with what this person is saying...

Anyone else think that Nationstates is in decline?

I wrote the following in the other forum:

NS was in decline when the mods started over policing.

The way I rp'ed it, and many others, was to be brash and have a laugh with the game. Older mods, for the first year of the game, had a great sense of humor and tolerated our shenanigans. Then the newer mods were less free thinking, and started cracking down on idiosynchratic behavior.

Too many syncophants on the forums, wishing to become mods themselves, backed the mods stifling behavior. When the more creative and free wheeling types of players were allowed to be deleted, and some made DOS nations like mine, that was the decline of NS.

Of course there were other reasons for the decline of NS, so I will list them:

1. War taken out as an option for gameplay: The mods started deleting people's nations after invasion as the rules became contradictory and bizarre for invasions. For the first year of the game, it was fun because there were less rules for invasions, and no founders.

2. Moderator rigidity in rulings: The mods had god like power, and abused it, as any group abuses power when given absolute freedom. Like the police departments, "blue wall of silence", other mods backed up rogue mods decisions. Anyone playing NS for a long time knows that mods had favorites, or were in collusion with other players in NS.

3. The game has been around a long time: As was pointed out, other, newer games came along. However, if NS were less moderated like it was in its inception, the dynamism would have remained, making it less like a glorified message board.

4. Lack of an appeals court on mod ruling: Again, the moderator decisions regarding deletions, region founders, and other gameplay issues caused a backlash.

5. Homogenization of the game: The game quickly lost the original spirit when too many rules were put in place, and people could not keep up with them. New rules simply sprouted from seemingly nowwhere, and who could keep up with them? Only the least offensive, and therefore fairly boring nations could thrive, leaving dullness in its wake. Most message boards became something like "hi how are you," type forums instead of having fun and bizarre proclamations from roleplayers.

How to fix NS?

Clear the DOS lists for one, and give amnesty to players. Having rules that are harsher than most real life governments leaves people with a bad taste in their mouths. When a game starts seeming like a totalitarian state, people leave in droves. Stifle creative freedom, and people leave.

There are simply steps to revere its decline, but the game continues to mirror the orwellian views the game's founder espouses.

Which leads me to the question, is this why Max Barry shaped the game this way? Is he trying to have it mirror what happens in his book Jennifer Government? The game started out as free wheeling, with little moderation, few rules, and great fun, but slowly became a police state with no sense of humor?

I for one think that this was Mr. Barry's intention all along.

I must say, I agree with what this person is saying...
You're so going to get deleted for speaking out towards the mods!:D

1. War taken out as an option for gameplay: The mods started deleting people's nations after invasion as the rules became contradictory and bizarre for invasions. For the first year of the game, it was fun because there were less rules for invasions, and no founders.

We're actively working on fixing the problems with the current invasion ruleset. We know that it is badly flawed.

2. Moderator rigidity in rulings: The mods had god like power, and abused it, as any group abuses power when given absolute freedom. Like the police departments, "blue wall of silence", other mods backed up rogue mods decisions.
Please back up accusations such as this with evidence. Our rulings are carefully reviewed and discussed except in the most simple and straightforward of cases.

Anyone playing NS for a long time knows that mods had favorites

We do try to be fair, but we are human.

or were in collusion with other players in NS.

Once again, please back up accusations such as this with evidence.

3. The game has been around a long time: As was pointed out, other, newer games came along. However, if NS were less moderated like it was in its inception, the dynamism would have remained, making it less like a glorified message board.
Interesting observation. We try to leave the game relatively unmoderated and compared to many games out there, we maintain a rather free world. Moderators are necessary. They weren't around in the beginning and were only added after it became painfully obvious that the game couldn't continue without them.

4. Lack of an appeals court on mod ruling: Again, the moderator decisions regarding deletions, region founders, and other gameplay issues caused a backlash.
How to CORRECTLY Appeal a Moderator's Decision
(Posted in the Guide to the Moderation Forum (READ BEFORE POSTING))
5. Homogenization of the game: The game quickly lost the original spirit when too many rules were put in place, and people could not keep up with them. New rules simply sprouted from seemingly nowwhere, and who could keep up with them? Only the least offensive, and therefore fairly boring nations could thrive, leaving dullness in its wake. Most message boards became something like "hi how are you," type forums instead of having fun and bizarre proclamations from roleplayers.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I've seen many active and entertaining boards. The great majority of speech is allowed on our forums and in the game. And if you saw how often we get complaints about something being offensive, I don't see how you could claim that only "the least offensive" nations are left.

Clear the DOS lists for one, and give amnesty to players.
No. It takes real work to earn a DOS and they are evaluated. If you've managed to earn one, we genuinely don't want you back. These have been repealed in a few rare cases that I've determined that they were applied hastily. I should note that I cannot recall a time when I lifted a DOS and did not need to shortly re-apply it.
Having rules that are harsher than most real life governments leaves people with a bad taste in their mouths.
I'm sorry, but you've got to be kidding me with this statement. If this isn't hyperbole, you should really take a look around. I read the papers every day and every day see someone being arrested for saying stuff that is completely legal on our forums.
Stifle creative freedom, and people leave.
Won't argue there. That's why we try not to.
There are simply steps to revere its decline, but the game continues to mirror the orwellian views the game's founder espouses.

Which leads me to the question, is this why Max Barry shaped the game this way? Is he trying to have it mirror what happens in his book Jennifer Government? The game started out as free wheeling, with little moderation, few rules, and great fun, but slowly became a police state with no sense of humor?

I for one think that this was Mr. Barry's intention all along.
Nope, it wasn't unless he's keeping secrets from the entire moderation staff that he's chosen to cause this to happen.

2. Moderator rigidity in rulings: The mods had god like power, and abused it, as any group abuses power when given absolute freedom. Like the police departments, "blue wall of silence", other mods backed up rogue mods decisions.

Please back up accusations such as this with evidence. Our rulings are carefully reviewed and discussed except in the most simple and straightforward of cases.

Stating cases which involved me personally: The deletion of the new societ state, the removal of the founder of the soviet union, the the che guerillas incident, the DoS rating for player "Brobin" which he earned for asking a question, the deletion of Northwestern kentucky and player "Lenin1924"s nations (I can't remember the name of Lenin1924s nation... Uddingston?). Theese are all within the last 3-4 months. I've been playing this game fro around 2 years now and I've certianly noticed this change, as have many other players.....

If folks had the nerve to speak up, i'm sure a crapload of people would have examples I was not around for.

If folks had the nerve to speak up, i'm sure a crapload of people would have examples I was not around for.

Why wouldn't they have the nerve to speak up? You do it quite frequently, and you've not been deleted for it.

Ah, the common cry of those unable to follow the rules. Amazingly, many of us have been able to play the game for quite some time without feeling the need to break the rules. The invasion rules that the author found so difficult to follow were put into place so that people like me were not forced to play the game the way that you want to. I for one am delighted with the addition of founders; that way, I don't have to wake up in the morning and find my nation in the Rejected Realms because some assholes think it's fun to take over random regions and eject people. Frankly, it seems that the author's just bitter because he/she isn't allowed to do whatever he/she wants anymore.

Has it really come to this?

" This message has been deleted by Katganistan. Reason: No ads for other sites, please."

I haven't been on NS's official forums for quite some time, and now I see for good reason. I thought that the stories people were telling about the mods here were untrue, and that you guys would never be that strict.

I guess I was wrong. You talk about people not having the nerve to speak up. If comments about CN are going to be deleted, of course people are going to be worried about speaking their minds. Oh, you can't say that, the mods'll get you.

The Internet is supposed to be about freedom of speech.:(

Why wouldn't they have the nerve to speak up? You do it quite frequently, and you've not been deleted for it.

Quite simpally, because some people think the moderator over-policing problem is MUCH larger than it is. Their afraid to speak up because their convinced that you guys can literally do whatever you want without limitation... I know this to be untrue, as if it was the case the NS community would be more dead than it already is...

Not to say that I don't think NS is being over policed, but I think its done through "colorful" interpretation of the TOS, not the lack of acknowledgement of it.

Ah, the common cry of those unable to follow the rules. Amazingly, many of us have been able to play the game for quite some time without feeling the need to break the rules. The invasion rules that the author found so difficult to follow were put into place so that people like me were not forced to play the game the way that you want to. I for one am delighted with the addition of founders; that way, I don't have to wake up in the morning and find my nation in the Rejected Realms because some assholes think it's fun to take over random regions and eject people. Frankly, it seems that the author's just bitter because he/she isn't allowed to do whatever he/she wants anymore.

You couldn't be more wrong. The addition of founders is one thing, that I always supported, but its the more recent additions to the game that are bothering people, especally the new invasion rules... if you haven't noticed, several regions are occupied by "Mod puppet" founders, something not covered in the TOS. This could be (and is) considered by some people as the moderators bending the rules in order to prevent invasions. People make the point that if invaders are going to be deleted for invading, why not just make invasion illegal? The answer is simple: because that would truly be the final nail in the coffin for NS.....

Ooh, and the problem isn't people who get deleted for breaking rules, the problem is people who get deleted for NOT breaking the rules... my main nation was deleted last October for reporting a guy who was spamming threats to people, I stated on the RMB that he was going to be deleted for it, and I got deleted for "using the mods as a weapon".

Ooh, and FYI, the guy was deleted for spamming threats an hour later.

You couldn't be more wrong. The addition of founders is one thing, that I always supported, but its the more recent additions to the game that are bothering people, especally the new invasion rules... if you haven't noticed, several regions are occupied by "Mod puppet" founders, something not covered in the TOS. This could be (and is) considered by some people as the moderators bending the rules in order to prevent invasions. People make the point that if invaders are going to be deleted for invading, why not just make invasion illegal? The answer is simple: because that would truly be the final nail in the coffin for NS.....


I don't know the rules for invading and I won't pretend I do. I think it should be banned, because I find it immature and a childish way to have fun at other people's expenses. But I don't make the rules for the game. I just sit in my password-protected, founder-active region, and play the game the way I like to play. It seems simple to me, though. If a region doesn't want to be invaded, don't invade it. I recall that there are entire regions set up specifically for invading/defending. Use those.


Ooh, and the problem isn't people who get deleted for breaking rules, the problem is people who get deleted for NOT breaking the rules... my main nation was deleted last October for reporting a guy who was spamming threats to people, I stated on the RMB that he was going to be deleted for it, and I got deleted for "using the mods as a weapon".

Ooh, and FYI, the guy was deleted for spamming threats an hour later.

So, basically, you broke the rules and got in trouble for it. Ooh, too bad. Next time don't tell a person you're going to get them deleted.

It's common decency not to post links to other games on a game's site, especially a game that would fit in the same genre, SoiKitty..

Also, about speaking up..I harass Sal and the mods plenty of times to know they do listen :p

Newsflash for you, bucko. NS wasn't founded on invading and defending, nor is it dependant on it to continue to be a fun and viable game.

There's a bigger world out there - perhaps it's time to take that into consideration. Sorry you feel someone dumped your little red tricycle in the ditch, but quite frankly, it's your (read 'invaders/defenders') own fault for not keeping things cleaner so that moderator intervention wouldn't be needed. Stir up enough trouble, make enough players miserable, there's going to be consequences. Sometimes they work for you, sometimes they don't. The world doesn't revolve around you and your fun. ;)

And please, leave off with the melodramatics. If a nation was deleted, it did break the rules, whether you felt it did or not. Your interpretation of the rules and guidelines here isn't what counts. And if I remember, you were allowed to make ample complaint about the situation you refer to, and are still here to keep complaining. Not much proof of bias or delete-at-will there, neh?

If people are 'afraid' to speak up in a game where there's a track record for allowing disagreement and discussion, that's their problem, not the mods. You feel something needs fixing? Speak up, or quit complaining. The whole 'I'll get deleted for disagreeing' whine line gets old, nor does it hold any water, despite what you may claim. Been here long enough to see differently.

If things are so dead, and you dislike it so much, go find something else to do with your time rather than obsess and bitch about something you claim you can't fix. Not much point to that, and nothing much to respect there.

As for me, I'm going to keep playing until it isn't any fun anymore. That day hasn't arrived yet. I don't see it coming any time soon either - there's ample fun to be had when rl leaves room for it.

I posted no link, CG :\

Besides, the admin and mods on the CyberNations forum have no problem with the NSers talking about NS. They want to learn from the discussions, no stifle debate.

I thought I did see a link here earlier, could be me thoguh...anyways, they (for now) tolerate it, I think, because a lot of their players are NS players. Different sides, try to see both ;)

Newsflash for you, bucko. NS wasn't founded on invading and defending, nor is it dependant on it to continue to be a fun and viable game.

<snip>
I disagree with you there. There are tons of people who enjoy the invader/defender aspect of NationStates and if it were to be taken away, NS would lose a large part of its user base. I'll agree that NS wasn't founded on invading/defending, but Max gave his blessing on the practice and now it's as integral as Role Play, the NSUN, and debating on the General forum. No part of the game trumps another and they're all equally important. (I guess the invader/defender part needs more moderation attention since its more dynamic than RP or debate).

Most of the original post doesn't really bring up any new points. They're all things that have been argued to death at one time or another. Who remembers the time we went on about democratically elected moderators and an appeals panel for all moderation decisions? That didn't work out so well... And to be fair, we now have the One Stop Rules Shop, which outlines most of the major rules in all parts of the game. We also have guidelines for appealing moderator decisions and we've all seen examples of moderator decisions being overturned and apologies given.

Sure, the invasion rules have defiantly gotten more complicated as time has passed, but I think they're still pretty simple to follow. (From my "defender" point of view). Either way, I'm glad to see that they're currently being worked on by the mods. (Do you have an idea when they'll be finished? :)) I think one of the biggest blows to the invader/defender game was the introduction of random updates. It makes things a lot more tedious and it has taken a lot of our fun away. IMO, the set update times were a lot fairer for both sides since invaders knew what time to move in to capture the region and what time to stay awake to kick the defenders, and the defenders knew when to move in and try to take the region back. I know we ask the question a lot, but is there any way you guys will revisit the random update idea?

Then I would like to appeal against the deletion of my previous post.

I don't recall saying anywhere that one aspect trumped any other. The topic at hand dealt with invaders/defenders - statement stands. The game itself won't die if that practice were to stop today, regardless if 'lots' of players left. Just like it wouldn't die if General were obliterated. Or even *gasp* if roleplaying stopped happening. There's always someone somewhere enjoying some aspect of it. With as many players as have come and gone, I'd think by now it would be clear that no one of us, or our preferred pastimes on the site, are so important as to provide a keystone for the place other than the basic framework itself.

You've got a large player base supporting every aspect of NS - your point on 'lots', again? For ever player you can produce who argues for invading/defending, I'll bet someone else could produce a player who would prefer not to be bothered with it. Again, your point? I'm not arguing to have it eliminated, I'm saying 'find something you enjoy, and go with it, and if you have suggestions to make, make them and quit whining, or move on'.

You talk about fair - how fair is it for all the regions who get messed with and don't want any part of the whole invade/defend business, or are too new to know any better? Is it fair to impose that sort of play on people for your own enjoyment any more than it's fair to curtail your play to protect them? I guess when it comes down to it, it's a matter of which does the more damage, or things wouldn't have panned out as they have so far. Fair? Not really, but then on a game this big, with as many aspects are included, 'fair' is going to be pretty relative, and likely going to go in whichever direction creates the least overall problems for the greatest amount of players - like it or not.

Yes, I realize it was given the green light. Doesn't change the fact that it has likely been one of the most problematic aspects of the game since it's introduction, thus the increased emphasis on the moderating of it, resulting in more outcry over the 'you're ruining my game' commentary. It's a simple matter of ratio. Same thing with the General forum, and the fact we see more problem posts from there than say the NationStates forum - more posting going on, the subject matter ... simple numbers. Anyone playing in an area of the game that's required more moderator attention is going to have a very different opinion on how things are run on account.

Perception is reality, no?

Then I would like to appeal against the deletion of my previous post.As this whole conversation about Cybernations is largely irrelevent to the matter at hand, request denied.

I feel my post was deleted simply for containing the word "Cybernations". I did not post an advert for another site, I mentioned another site in my post.

But, ok.

I feel my post was deleted simply for containing the word "Cybernations". I did not post an advert for another site, I mentioned another site in my post.

But, ok.

Considering that this post (and the post by a moderator) contain the word "Cybernations", I find this belief to be completly baseless.

If a nation was deleted, it did break the rules, whether you felt it did or not.

while i agree with you on most parts, i believe this can be very opinionated. for example, my first nation and region founder was deleted for UN multi'ing with it being said to be the head of i think 10 other nations in the UN. now while it looks to the mods that rules had been broken and i can't fault them for the decision they made, no rules were actually broken as all the nations were owned by different people and even off different computers. unfortunately they also had been logged on on each others computers and so it seemed cheating was a foot.

now as i said i can't fault the mods and its not their fault, but rules were technically NOT broken IMO and now my region is founderless and i've had to fight off not one but four invasions in recent times. so just because a nation was deleted it may not have broken rules, but have looked like it had. thats just my opinion as i stated earlier

Of course it's opinionated - opinions are what everyone posts after all. Your situation however is no different than all the others who've claimed their deletion/warning/slap on the wrist was a mistake on the mod's part. There's ample posts and stickies and everything else available that outline the problems with logging on from the same computer with multiple UN nations, whether they're owned by someone else or not. No excuse - it's breaking the rules as they are laid out, so my statement stands. Moderation, as has been stated by the crew repeatedly, obviously can't read intentions, and can't see what goes on the other side of the screen, just what the end results are. So ...

While I'm sure folks are sorry for the honest mistakes that happen, there's enough information out there to help keep people from making them, and there's plenty of precedents illustrating what happens when they do. Unfortunately, there's no foolproof 100% 'fair' way of handling it it seems, given whatever tools are available, but most folks seem to do just fine without running afoul, so it can't be nearly as bad as what some would have us think. Bottom line is it's our responsibility to behave and if we have a question, to ask.

[Edit] As for the founderless bit? Get everyone to clear out, and refound the region - end of problem. No need for the martyr bit - this solution also has been amply explained on the forums, multiple times.

<snip>

i know there were those things, i had never seen em at the time but ignorance of the rules is not an excuse. i'm just saying that there will always be disputes over decisions because the fact mods are only human.

and i wasn't playing the martyr, i was usin me as an example of a mistake which could not be avoided but has had far reaching consequences in the invading/defending aspect

I must say, I agree with what this person is saying...

The first time I saw a thread claiming NS was dying was three weeks after I joined. It wasn't then, and last I checked it still isn't.

Likewise. And NS has only grown since I joined. Aside from the apparent seasonal cycles, which seem to add/subtract roughly 15,000-20,000 nations at specific times of the year. (Generally around winter/summer breaks for most schools.)