NationStates Jolt Archive

How can a nation that is neither UN delegate nor regional founder eject nations from a region?

See region 00000000000


Am I missing something or is this some kind of glitch?

And one additional tid-bit - the nation doing the ejection is not even a UN nation at the time they ejected nations from the region?

What's up with this?

The crap with that Raider region again?

If they are now randomly ejecting nations, they are liable for griefing, report them to the mods.

He's not listed as Delegate on his nationpage because he resigned from the UN. However, the delegacy doesn't transfer until update, so the region still considers him to be the current delegate. It's been corrected.

I'll suggest that admins look into it, though I don't really see it as a problem. He was duly-elected Delegate (as I'm sure you well know) up until the time that he resigned. It's just a timing issue, not somebody hacking the region or anything.

The crap with that Raider region again?

If they are now randomly ejecting nations, they are liable for griefing, report them to the mods.
That was a totally unnecessary comment to post in the Moderation forum, Velkya. Think before you click 'Submit Reply'.

Ah, that's what I figured, but if someone gives up UN membership and the position of UN Delegate with it, is if logical that they should continue to be able to act in the capacity of Delegate?

Seems to me that this is a major hole in game mechanics and a possible exploit, or at least enough of a hole in the code that it could be eventually exploited in a very deliterious manner.

If someone is no longer the Delegate and not even a UN nation, is it really fair and logical that they should still be able to act as a UN nation and a Delegate?

But speaking of potential explioits to skirt game rules, what if this exploit could be used to temporarily create an undetected UN doubling that goes undetected?

Also, what if the nation that suddenly gives up a UN delegate position has a number of nations queued up with UN membership applications waiting in the wings? How could that be exploited. If this type of exploit was missed by the Mods and coders, what other related exploits have gone unnoticed and used?

And if this type of exploit is totally legitimate (and in this instance was known and totally premeditated by the user of this exploit) can I get away with using it too without being penalized?

I can think of a number or really dirty tactics and exploits that could suddenly become totally legal if this is allowed to stand.

Coding a game such as this can be a daunting task and there will always be any number of unforseeable exploits to be found, but there is also a game mechanics issue here that affects the rules.

Presumably, if only the UN delegate (in a region where it is permitted) and a founder (if there is one in existance) can eject and ban a nations, why is someone who is no longer the UN Delegate for a given region or the founder because they resigned from the UN still permitted to eject nations from the region? This condition implies that non UN nations can be a Delegate in a region. What then is the purpose of UN Membership?

The issue is only for 24 hours at the very most. I don't see how too much of a problem could come up from it, although there may be technical things I don't know about.

(Pardon my double-post, but this just popped into mind)

It's just a timing issue, not somebody hacking the region or anything.

Just like regions surfing at update to preserve endos and endorse nations in different regions? It's just a timing thing?

I'm not complaining for personal reasons, because it's only a game. The reason I'm complaining is that it goes against all sense of fair play to allow someone who resigned the delegate position and resigned UN membership to act in a capacity reserved by game mechanics and game rules to UN nations and delegates only.

It's a hole in mechanics, a hole in the code and has all the appearances of a deliberate act to thwart those game mechanics and hence the rules in terms of how the play of the game is explained in the FAQ section on NationStates.

The issue is only for 24 hours at the very most. I don't see how too much of a problem could come up from it, although there may be technical things I don't know about.

The problem with this is that even though the Delegate expires at update, the ban-list he created does not. Why should someone who gave up their position of Delegate by resigning from the UN be permitted to come back and act as delegate.

See above post.

The nation with the most endorsements will be made delegate at the next update, so I don't see anything to exploit. Either you have the win or you don't. There's only going to be one delegate. Once elected, you stay Delegate until the update when somebody beats your endorsement count. Call it a lame-duck delegacy if you want, but it's hardly an exploit.

It also doesn't matter how many queued nations you have with UN applications. If you join with more than one, it's multiing. I'm sure defenders just drool over the possibility of reporting those for deletion.

This is the second time in as many days I've seen this sort of illogical nonsense from you, Novare Res. Your conspiratorial tones and hints of code knowledge don't wash with those of us who actually do know how the game works. Give it a rest, why doncha?

has all the appearances of a deliberate act to thwart those game mechanics and hence the rules in terms of how the play of the game is explained in the FAQ section on NationStates.
You just went over the line with that one, Chuckles. Take your conspiracy theories and shove 'em somewhere else. You're WAY out of line.

The same guy that wrote the FAQ also wrote the code in question. Do you need to be reminded that the author of this game was a n00b Perl coder when he wrote this? That's he's a full-time author of fiction and not a programmer? That the other admins who monitor that mass of 4 year old code with all sorts of other stuff tacked on top of it are in fact volunteers, with other demands on their time?

Get a clue, get some manners, and drop this line.

Putting it that way, then I apoligize for having even brought this to anyone's attention at all.

I came here in good faith to report what I saw was a problem that needed to be solved. Instead of help I am accused of proposing some kind of 'conspiracy theory'. How it arrived at that, I am in the dark.

I had only the bset interests of the game at heart and thought that this was some kind of exploit. Sorry to have bothered you. I won't bother anyone for help here any more.

Thank you for your help.

I came here in good faith to report what I saw was a problem that needed to be solved. Instead of help I am accused of proposing some kind of 'conspiracy theory'. How it arrived at that, I am in the dark.Perhaps it was your constant use of the word "exploit", even after the situation was explained to you.

I had only the bset interests of the game at heart and thought that this was some kind of exploit.Which is reasonable. But when a game official, who is far more familiar with the inner workings of this game than you, explains that it's nothing to worry about, the proper course of action is to take his word for it; continuing to harp about how it is "a deliberate act to thwart those game mechanics" is not really acceptable. We know how to do our jobs, and we know what is and isn't exploitable; we really don't need to be told.

Sorry to have bothered you. I won't bother anyone for help here any more.This, on the other hand, is the kind of attitude we really don't need here. If you want to sulk, kindly don't tell us about it.