Nation name release!

[Almonaster Nuevo]

I know, but it's also 12 years of inactivity. They aren't coming back after that lONG.

Once again, there's always a chance. Once again, there have been many cases of players coming back after years of inactivity. Once again, there is not a shortage of good nation names available. Once again, the criteria for reserving might be revised in the future, but the admins won't be revising them just so people can grab and keep even more nation names. as puppets.

I agree. I have a couple of nations from when I joined which I can't recover because I don't know the password or have access to the E-Mail accounts I was using then. I still wouldn't want to see someone else using them.

[The Nation of Ceneria]

Greetings, [violet], et al.

Just wanted check whether there is still ongoing discussion in the Deep, Dark, and Definitively Demonic Modly Dungeon over a possible increase in the population threshold for name reuse, say to 750 million. Seeing as NS continues to gain traffic, and nations continue to die off at a rather impressive rate, I just think it would be beneficial to clear up some of the old (and intelligible) names that are sitting at ~503 million for use by future nations. Just to be clear, I'm definitely not after a specific name or anything, and that hypothetical specific name definitely didn't CTE at 611 million...

[ROM]

Greetings, [violet], et al.

Just wanted check whether there is still ongoing discussion in the Deep, Dark, and Definitively Demonic Modly Dungeon over a possible increase in the population threshold for name reuse, say to 750 million. Seeing as NS continues to gain traffic, and nations continue to die off at a rather impressive rate, I just think it would be beneficial to clear up some of the old (and intelligible) names that are sitting at ~503 million for use by future nations. Just to be clear, I'm definitely not after a specific name or anything, and that hypothetical specific name definitely didn't CTE at 611 million...

Me personally, I am against raising the name reuse population, because there is quite a few good names still available. Hell, within this last month I've gotten John F Kennedy, The Lord of the Rings, The Force, and Jar Jar Binks. Point is, there are plenty of good names and there will always be plenty of good names, you just have to look a little bit.

[CoraSpia]

Greetings, [violet], et al.

Just wanted check whether there is still ongoing discussion in the Deep, Dark, and Definitively Demonic Modly Dungeon over a possible increase in the population threshold for name reuse, say to 750 million. Seeing as NS continues to gain traffic, and nations continue to die off at a rather impressive rate, I just think it would be beneficial to clear up some of the old (and intelligible) names that are sitting at ~503 million for use by future nations. Just to be clear, I'm definitely not after a specific name or anything, and that hypothetical specific name definitely didn't CTE at 611 million...

Me personally, I am against raising the name reuse population, because there is quite a few good names still available. Hell, within this last month I've gotten John F Kennedy, The Lord of the Rings, The Force, and Jar Jar Binks. Point is, there are plenty of good names and there will always be plenty of good names, you just have to look a little bit.

And if people who just wanted them as trophies didn't keep claiming them, their'd be a hell of a lot more.

[ROM]

And if people who just wanted them as trophies didn't keep claiming them, their'd be a hell of a lot more.

You want the nation name? Found it before anybody else, it is that simple. Whoever founds the nation can quite frankly do whatever that they please to do with it, as long as it is within NS rules. So that means if they want to use the nation as a trophy, well, not much you can do about it.

[USS Monitor]

Greetings, [violet], et al.

Just wanted check whether there is still ongoing discussion in the Deep, Dark, and Definitively Demonic Modly Dungeon over a possible increase in the population threshold for name reuse, say to 750 million. Seeing as NS continues to gain traffic, and nations continue to die off at a rather impressive rate, I just think it would be beneficial to clear up some of the old (and intelligible) names that are sitting at ~503 million for use by future nations. Just to be clear, I'm definitely not after a specific name or anything, and that hypothetical specific name definitely didn't CTE at 611 million...

It's hard for Max and [v] to write code when we've got them tied up below decks. Sorry.

[Stormaen]

Jar Jar Binks.

Eww! Sometimes the dead should be left dead, goddamit!

[Right-Wing _America]

Greetings, [violet], et al.

Just wanted check whether there is still ongoing discussion in the Deep, Dark, and Definitively Demonic Modly Dungeon over a possible increase in the population threshold for name reuse, say to 750 million. Seeing as NS continues to gain traffic, and nations continue to die off at a rather impressive rate, I just think it would be beneficial to clear up some of the old (and intelligible) names that are sitting at ~503 million for use by future nations. Just to be clear, I'm definitely not after a specific name or anything, and that hypothetical specific name definitely didn't CTE at 611 million...

Given that NationStates is approaching the 15-year anniversary (if I remember correctly), I do think some sort of change is a good idea. I would go as far to say at least a billion. Also perhaps nations over 10 years old would be exempt from the population rule.

Alternatively and a more complex change would involve a calculation of approximate time the nation was used. Start date being the founding and the end date being the the last CTE. A sliding scale could be created with nations that were here longer requiring higher amounts of population to become released. This could also be used in conjunction with years since CTE as well.

Just a thought.

[USS Monitor]

Greetings, [violet], et al.

Just wanted check whether there is still ongoing discussion in the Deep, Dark, and Definitively Demonic Modly Dungeon over a possible increase in the population threshold for name reuse, say to 750 million. Seeing as NS continues to gain traffic, and nations continue to die off at a rather impressive rate, I just think it would be beneficial to clear up some of the old (and intelligible) names that are sitting at ~503 million for use by future nations. Just to be clear, I'm definitely not after a specific name or anything, and that hypothetical specific name definitely didn't CTE at 611 million...

Given that NationStates is approaching the 15-year anniversary (if I remember correctly), I do think some sort of change is a good idea. I would go as far to say at least a billion. Also perhaps nations over 10 years old would be exempt from the population rule.

Alternatively and a more complex change would involve a calculation of approximate time the nation was used. Start date being the founding and the end date being the the last CTE. A sliding scale could be created with nations that were here longer requiring higher amounts of population to become released. This could also be used in conjunction with years since CTE as well.

Just a thought.

I would prefer to stick to using population rather than time from founding to last CTE. Population measures the time a nation was actually active. If someone was consistently active, that should be treated differently from someone who has CTEd and returned multiple times.

[New Morthyr]

All hail to the god of nationstates (Because you code the game, you are technically a god of it) VIOLET!

Join the order of Violet and choose all the options for them in your issues, I will execute all members of the tranquility of yellow!

[Forum alt]

Couldn't you just do what a few other games do, and rename inactives to free up their old names, while giving them a one-time option to change their nation's name when/if they return? Or change back, if somebody else hasn't taken it by then.

If the old owner of the name comes back, you could provide a link to the nation(s) that had previously held that name if someone inputs an incorrect password when trying to log in, explaining that their nation might have been renamed due to inactivity and they can log in using the new name (and possibly change it back).

There would be a bit of a problem if both the new and old nation had the same password, though...

[USS Monitor]

Couldn't you just do what a few other games do, and rename inactives to free up their old names, while giving them a one-time option to change their nation's name when/if they return? Or change back, if somebody else hasn't taken it by then.

If the old owner of the name comes back, you could provide a link to the nation(s) that had previously held that name if someone inputs an incorrect password when trying to log in, explaining that their nation might have been renamed due to inactivity and they can log in using the new name (and possibly change it back).

There would be a bit of a problem if both the new and old nation had the same password, though...

This doesn't sound dramatically different from what we have. The system renames nations by tacking "ancient" on them if a new nation is created using the same name. Renaming the old account before anyone tries to make a new one would have absolutely no benefit compared to the current system.

[Consular]

Greetings, [violet], et al.

Just wanted check whether there is still ongoing discussion in the Deep, Dark, and Definitively Demonic Modly Dungeon over a possible increase in the population threshold for name reuse, say to 750 million. Seeing as NS continues to gain traffic, and nations continue to die off at a rather impressive rate, I just think it would be beneficial to clear up some of the old (and intelligible) names that are sitting at ~503 million for use by future nations. Just to be clear, I'm definitely not after a specific name or anything, and that hypothetical specific name definitely didn't CTE at 611 million...

I'd prefer it was raised to 1 billion personally.

867 million would also be fine.

It's not hard to reach that number at all. I think any nation of any real significant will be over that. Especially since they'd still have 3 years to reclaim their nation name before it became valid again.

[USS Monitor]

Greetings, [violet], et al.

Just wanted check whether there is still ongoing discussion in the Deep, Dark, and Definitively Demonic Modly Dungeon over a possible increase in the population threshold for name reuse, say to 750 million. Seeing as NS continues to gain traffic, and nations continue to die off at a rather impressive rate, I just think it would be beneficial to clear up some of the old (and intelligible) names that are sitting at ~503 million for use by future nations. Just to be clear, I'm definitely not after a specific name or anything, and that hypothetical specific name definitely didn't CTE at 611 million...

I'd prefer it was raised to 1 billion personally.

867 million would also be fine.

It's not hard to reach that number at all. I think any nation of any real significant will be over that. Especially since they'd still have 3 years to reclaim their nation name before it became valid again.

Everyone gets five years to reclaim their nation, not three.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I'd prefer it was raised to 1 billion personally.

867 million would also be fine.

It's not hard to reach that number at all. I think any nation of any real significant will be over that. Especially since they'd still have 3 years to reclaim their nation name before it became valid again.

Everyone gets five years to reclaim their nation, not three.

Three would be much more reasonable than 5

[USS Monitor]

Everyone gets five years to reclaim their nation, not three.

Three would be much more reasonable than 5

I may be biased because I've had puppets that I left dormant longer than 3 years, but I prefer 5. I think if we need to free up more names, we should focus on ones that have been dead for a very long time, and raise the population limit for those.

[Bears Armed]

Three would be much more reasonable than 5

I may be biased because I've had puppets that I left dormant longer than 3 years, but I prefer 5. I think if we need to free up more names, we should focus on ones that have been dead for a very long time, and raise the population limit for those.

My suggestion: expand the limit by 100 million for each year after 5 for which the nation has been dead, to an upper limit of 1 billion for 10+ years.

[USS Monitor]

I may be biased because I've had puppets that I left dormant longer than 3 years, but I prefer 5. I think if we need to free up more names, we should focus on ones that have been dead for a very long time, and raise the population limit for those.

My suggestion: expand the limit by 100 million for each year after 5 for which the nation has been dead, to an upper limit of 1 billion for 10+ years.

That suggestion has been floating around for a while. AFAIK, [violet] hasn't done it because it doesn't seem like new players are struggling too much to come up with names for their nations, but it's a possibility if it does get too difficult for people to find names.

I actually don't think we need the 10 years 1 billion cut off. The 100 million per year for every year after 5 is sufficient to protect large nations belonging to long-time players.

[Chrinthanium]

My suggestion: expand the limit by 100 million for each year after 5 for which the nation has been dead, to an upper limit of 1 billion for 10+ years.

That suggestion has been floating around for a while. AFAIK, [violet] hasn't done it because it doesn't seem like new players are struggling too much to come up with names for their nations, but it's a possibility if it does get too difficult for people to find names.

I actually don't think we need the 10 years 1 billion cut off. The 100 million per year for every year after 5 is sufficient to protect large nations belonging to long-time players.

That would be where we who have puppets should ensure they're active at all times if we wish to keep them

[Lady Scylla]

I think reducing the 5 year limit and raising the population limit, and incorporating post count would be a good move. The current rules aid those that are snagging puppets, particularly of real world names, simply for the 'trophy' of them and then doing little. Hong Kong has been a name that I've been after for a few years now so I could do RP with it and is owned by a user that also owns 'Vietnam' and several other puppets and have done very little with them. HK CTE'd not long ago, but I couldn't snag it as it was reserved due to the pop being over 500 mil. It was refounded again recently by the same user but the account only has about 80 posts. If they're actually going to use the account, then fine -- but when it CTE's and they're not using it for anything else than for the namesake -- I think a lax in the rules would be beneficial.

viewtopic.php?p=28370917#p28370917

[Petyr]

I think reducing the 5 year limit and raising the population limit, and incorporating post count would be a good move. The current rules aid those that are snagging puppets, particularly of real world names, simply for the 'trophy' of them and then doing little. Hong Kong has been a name that I've been after for a few years now so I could do RP with it and is owned by a user that also owns 'Vietnam' and several other puppets and have done very little with them. HK CTE'd not long ago, but I couldn't snag it as it was reserved due to the pop being over 500 mil. It was refounded again recently by the same user but the account only has about 80 posts. If they're actually going to use the account, then fine -- but when it CTE's and they're not using it for anything else than for the namesake -- I think a lax in the rules would be beneficial.

viewtopic.php?p=28370917#p28370917

Changing the limits is very unlikely to have any effect on super-organized players being able to grab all the highly desirable names before the average player can.

[Lady Scylla]

I think reducing the 5 year limit and raising the population limit, and incorporating post count would be a good move. The current rules aid those that are snagging puppets, particularly of real world names, simply for the 'trophy' of them and then doing little. Hong Kong has been a name that I've been after for a few years now so I could do RP with it and is owned by a user that also owns 'Vietnam' and several other puppets and have done very little with them. HK CTE'd not long ago, but I couldn't snag it as it was reserved due to the pop being over 500 mil. It was refounded again recently by the same user but the account only has about 80 posts. If they're actually going to use the account, then fine -- but when it CTE's and they're not using it for anything else than for the namesake -- I think a lax in the rules would be beneficial.

viewtopic.php?p=28370917#p28370917

Changing the limits is very unlikely to have any effect on super-organized players being able to grab all the highly desirable names before the average player can.

Which is why I suggested the post count. Someone using them to RP or talk is going to have a high post count. Those grabbing names simply for the trophy won't, and when the nation CTE's it should be up for grabs or have a lesser restriction before it's available.

[USS Monitor]

Changing the limits is very unlikely to have any effect on super-organized players being able to grab all the highly desirable names before the average player can.

Which is why I suggested the post count. Someone using them to RP or talk is going to have a high post count. Those grabbing names simply for the trophy won't, and when the nation CTE's it should be up for grabs or have a lesser restriction before it's available.

Answering issues, posting on regional message boards, or posting in F7 do not count toward post count. It would be unfair to players whose main activity is gameside or F7.

EDIT: We do have a statistic for post count including F7 posts, but that still doesn't address the issues and RMB posts.

[Frisbeeteria]

Which is why I suggested the post count.

From a technical perspective, that would require new game/forums integration code, which would also have to be adjusted anytime we did upgrades on the forums. I'd say your chances of that are slim and none.

You're also ignoring the fact that lots of nations have thousands of RMB posts and zero forum posts, particularly in school-based regions. There's a lot of activity in this game that has nothing to do with the forums. And yes, it would also be a problem to integrate RMB posts into the formulae. They're stored gameside, but in a different sub-system.

[Lady Scylla]

Which is why I suggested the post count. Someone using them to RP or talk is going to have a high post count. Those grabbing names simply for the trophy won't, and when the nation CTE's it should be up for grabs or have a lesser restriction before it's available.

Answering issues, posting on regional message boards, or posting in F7 do not count toward post count. It would be unfair to players whose main activity is gameside or F7.

EDIT: We do have a statistic for post count including F7 posts, but that still doesn't address the issues and RMB posts.

Hrm. Good point. Well, I guess just raising the pop and dropping the year and then praying you're faster than trophy collectors.