NationStates Jolt Archive

i think that the moderations should have a more relazing rule on the same computer rule not everywone owns two computers and some people have to use

picutre two cids one computer and they get banned is that far on the cids no not at all you cant tell on you cant play nationstates just becuase you get banned i tink that a country is found out to be the same ip adress for the same time over and over again then mayble like logiing a second onto the next one and so forth that my idear you cant just get banned for one mistack just one that is unfar

You can have as many nations as you like using the same computer, just as long as only one of them joins the WA.

This is not some arbitrary site policy set at the whim of the moderators. This is a decision reached by the principal Site Admin from way back in 2003 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=274575).

Yes, we recognize that it's unfair to families. No, we're not changing the rule.

There is no perfectly fair way to handle shared computers. Sure, it stinks that you and a sibling or family member can't play in the World Assembly together. There are ways around that, such as sharing a single WA nation, or switching off who is in the WA every few months. It's not perfect, but it is an alternative.

If we relaxed that rule about shared computers, however, anyone and everyone could claim that multiple WA nations from one machine is their mom/dad/brother/sister/husband/wife/hyper-intelligent pet iguana and we would have to let it slide. Including tons of 100% legitimate liars and rulebreakers. And believe you me, we have had downright blatant cheaters with nations named stuff like So-and-so1 and So-and-so2 try to claim that it was "just their brother."

Like Fris has already said, yeah, it stinks, but it's the best out of a bunch of bad options and there are alternatives for families playing together.

http://rpstudios.ian-justman.com/junk/CGgoods/Modsig2.JPG
~Evil Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~Master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

(Suggests what is presumably an unimplementable idea…)

I think one way to solve the WA issue is have voting member nations (like now) and non-voting, non-endorsing member nations. That way people/families could have multiple nations in the WA, following the WA's rules, but without breaking the game's rules.

Yes, I realize this is a complex way to solve the relatively aesthetic issue of being a rogue state. :D

... I'm not sure I understand your point. If they can't vote, and can't endorse, isn't the only thing they can do to get hit by WA resolution results they have no control over whatsoever? That and get a shiny WA Member tag? Somehow I don't really see that as solving the problem.

If they can't vote, and can't endorse, isn't the only thing they can do to get hit by WA resolution results they have no control over whatsoever?

Yes.

That and get a shiny WA Member tag?

Yes!
I did say the problem my proposal would solve was, as problems go, "primarily aesthetic".

I guess what I'm saying is that, by joining the WA as a non-voting member, one would remain powerless but still be a part of the greater organization. From the current WA resolution up for vote, for instance:

REALIZING that WA members are outnumbered by non members by about 3 to 1, ACKNOWLEDGING the fact that only WA members are required to comply with WA resolutions, NOTICING the fact that many non member nations are hostile towards WA members, REALIZING that the WA members need to be able to defend themselves if attacked

Being able to join as a non-voting (due to unfortunate out-of-game complexities) member gives the message that the nation supports the WA's internationalism, that it stands together with the other nations of the WA, that it doesn't choose to remain an isolated rogue state.

"Primarily aesthetic", I know. ;)

... I'm not sure I understand your point. If they can't vote, and can't endorse, isn't the only thing they can do to get hit by WA resolution results they have no control over whatsoever? That and get a shiny WA Member tag? Somehow I don't really see that as solving the problem.

Yes but you may agree with many of the resoulutions that have been passed by the WA, yet you cannot implement them as the game has no function for it, you may get some as an issue. It wouldn't be a bad idea, but I don't think it will happen some time soon as it is a lot of work to change the system, maybe something to think about for NS2

Hmmm. Something like "WA affiliate" as a new member category. Becoming an affiliate wouldn't require an email check (instantly pre-approved!), and you'd get a shiny green tag saying "WA affiliate" and be subjected to the whims of the WA when the update comes around.

While I don't know the game code, it sounds quite doable to my Software Engineer ears. Still a matter of priorities though, and whether the admins even like the idea in and of itself.

Ballotonia

And yet the problem is that people want full WA membership and don't think it's fair that they're limited to one WA nation per computer.

Primarily, people become WA members to vote and to raid, so I don't see how adding this would help.

And yet the problem is that people want full WA membership and don't think it's fair that they're limited to one WA nation per computer.

It's called "throwing them a bone". :D

1. Who in their right mind would sign up to be a non-voting member?

2. How would the game be able to distinguish between the two? I see even more potential problems tracking non-voting and voting members, IP addresses, family groups, and other BS that it would be an even bigger hassle.

It's called "throwing them a bone". :D

Let me throw you a similar real-life bone.

My dogs have crapped all over the back yard. It's nasty. You need to come over, clean up all the mess, load it in your car, and haul it off. I'm going to pay someone else for your work, and you're not allowed back in the yard to enjoy its pristine beauty.

I don't even mind if you and your brothers share the same shovel. Are you in?

snip

While I'm sure your analogy is wonderfully moist and fluffy, I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean.

Here, let me help.

Let me throw you a similar real-life bone.

My Nations have crapped all over the World Assembly. It's nasty. You need to come over, clean up all the mess, load it in your car, and haul it off to your nation. I'm going to pay some other nations for your work, and you're not allowed to have any say in how much shit the World Assembly gives you, or to enjoy its pristine beauty.

I don't even mind if you and your brothers share the same shovel. Are you in?

Do you understand? Or do I need to strip another layer of lacquer off this here wood before you see the grain?

Do you understand? Or do I need to strip another layer of lacquer off this here wood before you see the grain?

While I shall grant you the benefit of the doubt in your assertion that there is, in fact, a grain, I think it may be travelling in the wrong direction or is perhaps from the wrong kind of wood entirely.