NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, I just had to ask.

If Beeker can have his punishment rescinded, can I have my punishment, the deletion of my ex-nation Hogsweat rescinded? I know a DOS is different to a deletion, but if a DOS can be repealed for 'good behaviour' why can't a deletion? Like Beeker, I have learnt the error of my ways, I shall never again mass eject people from a region with no malicious intent (or for that matter WITH malicious intent) nor will I send telegrams to people insulting them because of their nation name/assumed political views.

If Beeker has promised not to recommit the rule-violations he did previously, then why, if I promise the same, can I not receive the same? Perhaps its futile to ask, but I just did anyway.

I fully support Quester's argument and think that Hogsweat should be revived.

My position from two years ago remains the same; I offer my steadfast and unmitigated support to Matt in the request to revive Hogsweat.

Erastide answered it (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12608254&postcount=8)already


There's a difference between a player being declared DOS and getting one of their nations deleted.

Hogsweat was never told not to ever come back to NS, he had his nation deleted. But I'm pretty sure he's kept other nations.

Beeker was previously told, due to his actions back then, that he was no longer welcome. No new nations, no old nations, nothing.

In the end, neither will be receiving their old nations back.

I read, and I'm contesting that. If one punishment can be removed for 'good behaviour', why can't another (assuming I am 'well behaved', even if I'm not I would still like to know)

I have to agree with Questers here. Hogsweat was deleted around 2 years ago on rather spurious grounds, and has since remained an active and important part of the RPing community on NS. He has aided innumerable people on International Incidents new to the game - people who would otherwise have fallen inactive.

Given that his initial deletion was for breaking "the letter not the spirit" of an unwritten rule (I still don't understand how that works, but that is not for here), and that since then his conduct has been exemplary, it would seem inconsistent not to extend in this case a pardon that has been extended to others guilty of commiting graver infractions.

If you have a rule book you have to be consistent which is why I am supporting Questers here.

I think that the original reason for the DoS was stupid, and I think that the moderators were (and still are, for the most part) hard headed, stubborn and don't like to retract their actions because they think it will undermine their authority. I think y'all know my position.

Was there anybody in Haven, at the time, that wasn't warned of the reforming of the region that really were bothered enough to want to see Hogsweat deleted?

I think that the original reason for the DoS was stupid, and I think that the moderators were (and still are, for the most part) hard headed, stubborn and don't like to retract their actions because they think it will undermine their authority. I think y'all know my position.

Was there anybody in Haven, at the time, that wasn't warned of the reforming of the region that really were bothered enough to want to see Hogsweat deleted?
Hogsweat never had a DOS order. If he had, the nation of Questers would not exist. Getting one nation deleted is actually quite common for large numbers of people that continue to play NS for long periods of time.

I definitely must agree with Prae's point on his activity on International Incidients. Matt has remained a large and productive part of our community for quite some time, and has proven his value as both an RPer and an NSer. I feel he should be given a second chance and have the privelige of having his original nation restored, just as Beeker was given their nation back for "good behavior".

Hogsweat never had a DOS order. If he had, the nation of Questers would not exist. Getting one nation deleted is actually quite common for large numbers of people that continue to play NS for long periods of time.

You ignored the second half of Mac's question:

Was there anybody in Haven, at the time, that wasn't warned of the reforming of the region that really were bothered enough to want to see Hogsweat deleted?

DOS =/= Deletion

The former is a great deal harsher and more final than the latter. A player may create a new nation if they get deleted. A player who's been DOSed is essentially banned entirely from the site.

While rare, DOS orders may be rescinded on a case-by-case basis. However, it has been established since we first got mods that individual nations deleted for rules violations will not be restored under any circumstances.

Hogsweat never had a DOS order. If he had, the nation of Questers would not exist. Getting one nation deleted is actually quite common for large numbers of people that continue to play NS for long periods of time.

I think Macabees got DOS mixed up with deletion.

While rare, DOS orders may be rescinded on a case-by-case basis. However, it has been established since we first got mods that individual nations deleted for rules violations will not be restored under any circumstances.

Can I inquire as to why?

DOS =/= Deletion

The former is a great deal harsher and more final than the latter.

Out of curosity, if the harsher and more final punishment can be rescinded for good behavior, why can't the less harsh, less final punishment?

And I'm also curious about Mac's second question.

It seems inconsistent to say that a DoS order, which is a "a great deal harsher and more final" than a deletion, can be forgiven based on good behaviour but a deletion cannot.

To take a real life example, the principle is the same as saying that showing remorse can get you off your death sentence for murder, but it can't get you off your £5 fine for non-functioning tail lights.

Clearly a "less harsh and final" punishment ought to be less easily forgiven, because whatever happened to provoke it must have been much more grave. The fact is that Hogsweat/Questers was not acting out of malice, did not know (with justifiably good reason) that he was breaking the rules and has stated he has no intention ever of doing anything of the like again.

There doesn't seem to be anything standing in the way of the rescinding of this punishment other than the "hard headedness, stubbornness" that Macabees described.

Yes, you're right - I did mix it up. Or at least, wasn't aware of the correct definition of DOS. I thought delete on sight meant deleting on sight of an infraction. Regardless, my point still stands (you know, the point which you ignored).

I think that the original reason for the DoS was stupid, and I think that the moderators were (and still are, for the most part) hard headed, stubborn and don't like to retract their actions because they think it will undermine their authority. I think y'all know my position.

Was there anybody in Haven, at the time, that wasn't warned of the reforming of the region that really were bothered enough to want to see Hogsweat deleted?

Apparently, whoever reported him (assuming my theory of an automated system for notifying the Mods, mentioned in the NSWiki (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Hogsweat_deletion_controversy), is incorrect.)

As the only one to be forumbanned for voicing my position, I think you all know where I stand on the issue.

While not a mod myself (and heaven knows, I certainly do not envy you guys some of the stuff you have had to handle here), I would have to agree with both Prae and Mac here.

If a DoS order can be rescinded, then there should be grounds for considering rescinding a deletion.

It seems inconsistent to say that a DoS order, which is a "a great deal harsher and more final" than a deletion, can be forgiven based on good behaviour but a deletion cannot.

To take a real life example, the principle is the same as saying that showing remorse can get you off your death sentence for murder, but it can't get you off your £5 fine for non-functioning tail lights.

Clearly a "less harsh and final" punishment ought to be less easily forgiven, because whatever happened to provoke it must have been much more grave. The fact is that Hogsweat/Questers was not acting out of malice, did not know (with justifiably good reason) that he was breaking the rules and has stated he has no intention ever of doing anything of the like again.

There doesn't seem to be anything standing in the way of the rescinding of this punishment other than the "hard headedness, stubbornness" that Macabees described.
Hear Hear!

it has been established since we first got mods that individual nations deleted for rules violations will not be restored under any circumstances.

I can't find this on the One Stop Rules Shop. Has this policy been set down by consistent precedent on which one would have to research past rulings to discover or has it been written down?

DOS =/= Deletion

The former is a great deal harsher and more final than the latter. A player may create a new nation if they get deleted. A player who's been DOSed is essentially banned entirely from the site.

While rare, DOS orders may be rescinded on a case-by-case basis. However, it has been established since we first got mods that individual nations deleted for rules violations will not be restored under any circumstances.

Sorry Matt, but Reploid Productions sounds reasonable. Part of the penalty is the permanent removal of the nation. A DoS nation has to make a new nation if let back in, and a deleted nation has to make a new nation to come back. Otherwise, it's just an extended suspension of the nation, which is hardly a punishment. (more of a slap on the wrist than anything, and hardly an incentive to not break rules)

With the way the rules were at the time, I've to say that you DID violate a rule, and that even though you had only the best intentions, there's not much room to argue rules in place. Why not make some new account like Hogsweat2 or something?

Why not make some new account like Hogsweat2 or something?

How about you get deleted for an offence not listed in the "one stop rule shop" and then get told to make a new account with a number 2 at the end after 2 years? I don't think you'd be too happy, either, considering this offence was done with exactly the opposite of malicious intent at mind and I think everyone involved knows that. Still, the question is the same: if DOS, one of the harshest punishments, is redeemable, why isn't a simple deletion?

haha what's a guy from bosco doing on here. Anyhow this is little of your business. tg me, who the hell are you?

Why doesn't anyone get it? Having DoS rescinded does not restore a nation. It allows someone to create a new nation, where they previously could not. No one has had a deleted nation restored, DoS or otherwise. You are asking two completely different things. Yes DoS is harsher, but Beeker has not been restored, he has rerolled with a different name. Hogsweat has continued to play, under the name Questers. That's the lesser punishment. There is no inconsistency of enforcement.

Why doesn't anyone get it? Having DoS rescinded does not restore a nation. It allows someone to create a new nation, where they previously could not. No one has had a deleted nation restored, DoS or otherwise. You are asking two completely different things. Yes DoS is harsher, but Beeker has not been restored, he has rerolled with a different name. Hogsweat has continued to play, under the name Questers. That's the lesser punishment. There is no inconsistency of enforcement.

Yes, which rescinds their punishment. It means their punishment is no longer applicable because the administration no longer enforces a delete on sight order. If Beekers nation was restored, that would be two counts of having a punishment rescinded. Since he's allowed back, that would be one punishment rescinded. In the same fashion, restoring Hogsweat would be one punishment rescinded.

I fully support the reinstatement of Hogsweat.

Look, his record's been nothing but spotless, except for the fact that he got deleted because he broke some rule that was later rescinded. If you don't agree with the rule right now, why still enforce the punishment related to its breaking?

Why doesn't anyone get it? Having DoS rescinded does not restore a nation. It allows someone to create a new nation, where they previously could not. No one has had a deleted nation restored, DoS or otherwise. You are asking two completely different things. Yes DoS is harsher, but Beeker has not been restored, he has rerolled with a different name. Hogsweat has continued to play, under the name Questers. That's the lesser punishment. There is no inconsistency of enforcement.

I'm pretty sure everyone has substantiated this already. The gripe is that Beeker is now exempt from his previous delivered punishment.

I believe Praetonia provided the best example:

is the same as saying that showing remorse can get you off your death sentence for murder, but it can't get you off your £5 fine for non-functioning tail lights.

Why doesn't anyone get it? Having DoS rescinded does not restore a nation. It allows someone to create a new nation, where they previously could not. No one has had a deleted nation restored, DoS or otherwise. You are asking two completely different things. Yes DoS is harsher, but Beeker has not been restored, he has rerolled with a different name. Hogsweat has continued to play, under the name Questers. That's the lesser punishment. There is no inconsistency of enforcement.
The point is that the DoS was taken away. If the bigger punishment is taken away, why is the lesser punishment, which was for a controversial and not badly intended action, not taken away?

If the Mods start to remove penalties, then they must be prepared to face logic, and remove other penalties.

Yes, which rescinds their punishment. It means their punishment is no longer applicable because the administration no longer enforces a delete on sight order. If Beekers nation was restored, that would be two counts of having a punishment rescinded. Since he's allowed back, that would be one punishment rescinded. In the same fashion, restoring Hogsweat would be one punishment rescinded.

It does not rescind the punishment. The punishment is not being able to play NS at all. If the Jolt warp could go back far enough, they might be able to rescind the punishment, otherwise, no. Only having a nation deleted is far and away a lesser punishment than not being allowed a nation at all. The calls for reinstatement of a deleted nation are unreasonable.

I'm pretty sure everyone has substantiated this already. The gripe is that Beeker is now exempt from his previous delivered punishment.

I believe Praetonia provided the best example:

I believe a better example is this:
Two people have lost their driver's license, one for no insurance, one for DUI.
"No insurance" gets insurance, pays a fine, and gets a new license. "DUI" goes to jail. Now, "DUI" has served his time, been released, and also gotten a new license. Your argument is equivalent to "no insurance" now demanding his original license back.

I believe a better example is this:
Two people have lost their driver's license, one for no insurance, one for DUI.
"No insurance" gets insurance, pays a fine, and gets a new license. "DUI" goes to jail. Now, "DUI" has served his time, been released, and also gotten a new license. Your argument is equivalent to "no insurance" now demanding his original license back.
Lets put it this way

Two people have lost their driver's license, one for no insurance (even though he had it), one for DUI.
"No insurance" gets insurance, pays a fine, and gets a new license. "DUI" goes to jail. Now, due to a change in the law, "DUI" has been released, and also gotten a new license. Yet, "No Insurance" who did have insurance in the first place, is yet to receive compensation. Not to mention that the insurance law was repealed afterwards.

It does not rescind the punishment. The punishment is not being able to play NS at all. If the Jolt warp could go back far enough, they might be able to rescind the punishment, otherwise, no. Only having a nation deleted is far and away a lesser punishment than not being allowed a nation at all. The calls for reinstatement of a deleted nation are unreasonable.

I was generally under the impression that, when a law is repealed, the people who were convincted under that law (I.e. witchcraft laws, anti-bathing laws, etc.) were generally pardoned. I have yet to find out what this process is legally called, but I imagine it would apply here. Especially since the rule that was repealed wasn't actually codified.

look, i don't think this is really that hard to understand. just think of it as a difference between a speeding fine and a lengthy prison sentence. you don't get your money back if you drive within the law for two years, but a prison sentence can be cut short if the prisoner behaves well and is deemed to be a reformed character. Hogsweat got fined one nation. Beeker got a senetence of indefinite length which has now been cut short to two years for good behaviour and reformation of character. his punishment has not been rescinded, it has just ended.

Let's spell this out in VERY LARGE LETTERS, since you lot can't seem to get it.

The nation 'Beeker' (and many others) were deleted.
The player who played 'Beeker' was asked to leave the game
He was told NOT to come back.
We've since decided to give him another chance, under probation.

The nation 'Hogsweat' was deleted.
The player behind 'Hogsweat' received an apology that the rules required his deletion.
He was invited to immediately use a new nation to resume play.
At no time did we ask, or WANT, that player to leave the game.

As for the idiotic concept of retroactive reversal, that is clearly spelled out in the Influence Sticky in Tech, as follows:;10754281']Q. I had a nation deleted for breaking an "Invasion Griefing" rule, but now those rules have been abolished. Can I have my nation back?
A. No. We don't retroactively punish players for breaking rules that didn't previously exist, and we don't pardon players who broke rules that have now been removed. Players must abide by whatever rules were in place at the time.We've been though this about eight too many times, and it will not be reversed. End of page, end of story, end of book, end of library, end of everything.

Thread closed.