NationStates

A brief note in agreement on the histories on older nations, seeing as how that can bring up some bad baggage.

Also a suggestion on how you can still have the name you want, with some additions:

Underscoring can still net you a name you like. Name_Name, _Name Name_
Implementation of a dash can as well. Name-Name, -Name Name-
Asterisks also work. *Name Name*
Any other additional characters proceeding or following, as well. -=Name Name=-
Experiment with the Character Map etc, see what works. á è ö © ® ℗ ™ ∞
(No guarantee, haven't tried them all, hence, experiment.)

Get creative, as others have suggested. It isn't ideal, no, but even mine is a result of an existing name being used, and me coming up with something different that'd fit with a theme.

Dread Lady Nathicana wrote:A brief note in agreement on the histories on older nations, seeing as how that can bring up some bad baggage.

Also a suggestion on how you can still have the name you want, with some additions:

Underscoring can still net you a name you like. Name_Name, _Name Name_
Implementation of a dash can as well. Name-Name, -Name Name-
Asterisks also work. *Name Name*
Any other additional characters proceeding or following, as well. -=Name Name=-
Experiment with the Character Map etc, see what works. á è ö © ® ℗ ™ ∞
(No guarantee, haven't tried them all, hence, experiment.)

Get creative, as others have suggested. It isn't ideal, no, but even mine is a result of an existing name being used, and me coming up with something different that'd fit with a theme.

Most of that is wrong. Only three of those combinations work. Name_Name could work if someone doesn't already have the nation without the underscore, unlikely. Name-Name and -Name Name- are the only other name combinations that would work.

I wanted "Belton", but New Belton was almost as good.

Inactivity and name release should be on a progressive curve.

So a nation with only 100 mil be free in say, five months, whilst a billion populated nation could take five years.

After ten years of Nationstates, our name pool isn't getting any larger. I've had creative ideas for nations and concepts that I thought no one ever would of thought of just to have them taken.

Anyway,

So here are my thoughts on "Name Reform:"

• Progressive Name Release system based on activity level to time up to 750 million (after that the name is reserved forever).
• Allow umlauts (would be particularly good in increasing activity from non-English speakers)
• Allow people (mostly for puppets) to free up the name immediately once it is CTED. Could also help people give up Nationstates entirely by condemning their name to be taken.

The Liberated Territories wrote:Inactivity and name release should be on a progressive curve.

So a nation with only 100 mil be free in say, five months, whilst a billion populated nation could take five years.

After ten years of Nationstates, our name pool isn't getting any larger. I've had creative ideas for nations and concepts that I thought no one ever would of thought of just to have them taken.

Anyway,

So here are my thoughts on "Name Reform:"

• Progressive Name Release system based on activity level to time up to 750 million (after that the name is reserved forever).
• Allow umlauts (would be particularly good in increasing activity from non-English speakers)
• Allow people (mostly for puppets) to free up the name immediately once it is CTED. Could also help people give up Nationstates entirely by condemning their name to be taken.

Mods may not like some of your ideas, or they may be technically "difficult" to do, but I like them, all of them.

My beef has always been less about inactive large nations and more about people who jump on a newly released name, who then proceed to do nothing with it, and the nation times out. I feel like there should be something like a 90 day time limit or something like that. 30 days of activity + 60 day vacation mode. If it times out before 90 days, then the name is rereleased. (Just so we're clear, I personally don't really want any more puppets, because if I do nothing with them, what's the point of having them? Bragging rights? Whoopty-do!)

I understand holding nations for those who've been gone for years, because it always seems like someone from the past is always popping up. Some have been out of the game for 5 or more years.

I also do like the idea of allowing people to select the option of allowing their nation name to go back into the great big o' pot, but who knows how many people would actually use it though. That's always the concern. Don't want the tech folks coding something that no one uses.

(And as someone who uses MS Access to sort through and keep track of nation capitals and leaders, good grief do I hate people putting special characters at the very beginning of the nation name. It messes the sorting up horribly. DLN just about gave me a heart attack. )

Avalon wrote:Yeah, a decade it's too much for me too. Especially for nations that were active only for a couple of months. I'd say the more time you were active, the more time your name is reserved. I think that's similar to what Lordieth was saying, but I wouldn't measure log in time.

yo
kind of what I said

I agree, what's so bad about re-using names? Perhaps a system could be implemented where you can use a "reserved" nation name under the agreement that if the original owner/last owner wants to refound that nation then it goes to them and you must change your nations name-... or something.

Well this isn't an immediate issue but yeah it would be best to make a change like this now rather than the day when the only names left are "afgdjfhgiherongjerinjver" and "Bananaland99999". Foresight is a great thing.

Levistavia wrote:I agree, what's so bad about re-using names? Perhaps a system could be implemented where you can use a "reserved" nation name under the agreement that if the original owner/last owner wants to refound that nation then it goes to them and you must change your nations name-... or something.

The problem with that is that this is very hard, if not impossible to implement.

Not to mention the insane amounts of confusion it causes among other players. "Huh, I thought you were actively involved in P2TM RP?" "No, that's someone else who used the same name", etc.

The Blaatschapen wrote:

Levistavia wrote:I agree, what's so bad about re-using names? Perhaps a system could be implemented where you can use a "reserved" nation name under the agreement that if the original owner/last owner wants to refound that nation then it goes to them and you must change your nations name-... or something.

The problem with that is that this is very hard, if not impossible to implement.

Not to mention the insane amounts of confusion it causes among other players. "Huh, I thought you were actively involved in P2TM RP?" "No, that's someone else who used the same name", etc.

If it's a larger nation it's taken them an age to delete. This basically means that no, they weren't active and probably forgotten by most after a while. In fact I suspect some people would recognize the fact that they've gone and aren't coming back any time soon.

The thing about re-using names, is that... why can't you be creative enough to make your own name and turn it into something popular yourself? Why do you have to steal someone else's work just because it seems 'cool'. Make your own. Make it cool. Then we don't have the above problem.

If you create a name and then type it in and you get the dreaded: "Name not available" message...it simply means you're not being creative enough. Go back, try again. Rinse and repeat.

Enfaru wrote:

The Blaatschapen wrote:
The problem with that is that this is very hard, if not impossible to implement.

Not to mention the insane amounts of confusion it causes among other players. "Huh, I thought you were actively involved in P2TM RP?" "No, that's someone else who used the same name", etc.

If it's a larger nation it's taken them an age to delete. This basically means that no, they weren't active and probably forgotten by most after a while. In fact I suspect some people would recognize the fact that they've gone and aren't coming back any time soon.

The thing about re-using names, is that... why can't you be creative enough to make your own name and turn it into something popular yourself? Why do you have to steal someone else's work just because it seems 'cool'. Make your own. Make it cool. Then we don't have the above problem.

If you create a name and then type it in and you get the dreaded: "Name not available" message...it simply means you're not being creative enough. Go back, try again. Rinse and repeat.

Took me two tries to find this name...

Northrop-Grumman wrote:My beef has always been less about inactive large nations and more about people who jump on a newly released name, who then proceed to do nothing with it, and the nation times out. I feel like there should be something like a 90 day time limit or something like that. 30 days of activity + 60 day vacation mode. If it times out before 90 days, then the name is rereleased.

There definitely does seem to be a kind of feeding frenzy when popular names get released, but then whoever gets the name does nothing with it. It seems like they're most interested in making sure no-one else gets it. I'm not sure if the proposed idea would help much, though, since it would just motivate that kind of person to keep it for 90 days and then let it die.

Quilavaland wrote:Well this isn't an immediate issue but yeah it would be best to make a change like this now rather than the day when the only names left are "afgdjfhgiherongjerinjver" and "Bananaland99999". Foresight is a great thing.

We already did do something! Pre-2011, that's when it was hard to find a good name.

[violet] wrote:

Northrop-Grumman wrote:My beef has always been less about inactive large nations and more about people who jump on a newly released name, who then proceed to do nothing with it, and the nation times out. I feel like there should be something like a 90 day time limit or something like that. 30 days of activity + 60 day vacation mode. If it times out before 90 days, then the name is rereleased.

There definitely does seem to be a kind of feeding frenzy when popular names get released, but then whoever gets the name does nothing with it. It seems like they're most interested in making sure no-one else gets it. I'm not sure if the proposed idea would help much, though, since it would just motivate that kind of person to keep it for 90 days and then let it die.

Would it be possible to put recycled nations, the ones that were released with a less than 500 million population, on a faster second release date, i.e they wouldn't have to wait the whole 5 year period, maybe half that long, to be re-released if the person who founded them hadn't kept them alive long enough to reach the 500 million cap. This would be a retroactive solution to the problem of the people who founded nations to prevent others from using them during the past releases. Many of these people failed to keep the nations they grabbed for the 500 population minimum.

Arguably founding a nation from the boneyard should indicate a commitment to actually using it, because of the trouble that was incurred in releasing the names and the purpose of the program, therefore the people who failed to maintain them for the requisite time period, 3 months, have a weaker claim to protection than ancient nations that existed for years.

Gest wrote:

[violet] wrote:There definitely does seem to be a kind of feeding frenzy when popular names get released, but then whoever gets the name does nothing with it. It seems like they're most interested in making sure no-one else gets it. I'm not sure if the proposed idea would help much, though, since it would just motivate that kind of person to keep it for 90 days and then let it die.

Would it be possible to put recycled nations, the ones that were released with a less than 500 million population, on a faster second release date, i.e they wouldn't have to wait the whole 5 year period, maybe half that long, to be re-released if the person who founded them hadn't kept them alive long enough to reach the 500 million cap. This would be a retroactive solution to the problem of the people who founded nations to prevent others from using them during the past releases. Many of these people failed to keep the nations they grabbed for the 500 population minimum.

Arguably founding a nation from the boneyard should indicate a commitment to actually using it, because of the trouble that was incurred in releasing the names and the purpose of the program, therefore the people who failed to maintain them for the requisite time period, 3 months, have a weaker claim to protection than ancient nations that existed for years.

I like the idea, but not so much your waiting time. I takes 6 Months to reach 500 Million, so why not make the waiting time to refound a former nation name with 500 Million 6 Months? I think using the time equal to the time that the previous nation was active works as a waiting time.

For example, if I had a nation CTE that was 4 Years 2 Months old, the waiting time to refound a nation with that name should be 4 years 2 Months.

We could also try basing the wait time on how many times the nation logged in. So if a nation CTE after logging in 28 times, the waiting time could be 28 Months. If your nation is set to log in automatically, I counts as one time for each time the server says your "Online".

Indian Empire wrote:

Gest wrote:
Would it be possible to put recycled nations, the ones that were released with a less than 500 million population, on a faster second release date, i.e they wouldn't have to wait the whole 5 year period, maybe half that long, to be re-released if the person who founded them hadn't kept them alive long enough to reach the 500 million cap. This would be a retroactive solution to the problem of the people who founded nations to prevent others from using them during the past releases. Many of these people failed to keep the nations they grabbed for the 500 population minimum.

Arguably founding a nation from the boneyard should indicate a commitment to actually using it, because of the trouble that was incurred in releasing the names and the purpose of the program, therefore the people who failed to maintain them for the requisite time period, 3 months, have a weaker claim to protection than ancient nations that existed for years.

I like the idea, but not so much your waiting time. I takes 6 Months to reach 500 Million, so why not make the waiting time to refound a former nation name with 500 Million 6 Months? I think using the time equal to the time that the previous nation was active works as a waiting time.

For example, if I had a nation CTE that was 4 Years 2 Months old, the waiting time to refound a nation with that name should be 4 years 2 Months.

You're right that's it 6 months and I like your "time used" idea. If this idea has any chance of getting adopted it should only apply to nations that have already been released once so only nations under 500.

Gest wrote:Would it be possible to put recycled nations, the ones that were released with a less than 500 million population, on a faster second release date, i.e they wouldn't have to wait the whole 5 year period,

Yes, it's possible, and it's also possible to base it on "time used" as mentioned above.

Indian Empire wrote:I like the idea, but not so much your waiting time. I takes 6 Months to reach 500 Million, so why not make the waiting time to refound a former nation name with 500 Million 6 Months? I think using the time equal to the time that the previous nation was active works as a waiting time.

For example, if I had a nation CTE that was 4 Years 2 Months old, the waiting time to refound a nation with that name should be 4 years 2 Months.

That's far too biased in favor of re-use, imho. We really do have people come back and pick up their old nations five or ten years later, and that's a great thing. You might want to come back in ten years, too! There isn't such a shortage of good names that we need to re-use all of them.

[violet] wrote:

Gest wrote:Would it be possible to put recycled nations, the ones that were released with a less than 500 million population, on a faster second release date, i.e they wouldn't have to wait the whole 5 year period,

Yes, it's possible, and it's also possible to base it on "time used" as mentioned above.

Indian Empire wrote:I like the idea, but not so much your waiting time. I takes 6 Months to reach 500 Million, so why not make the waiting time to refound a former nation name with 500 Million 6 Months? I think using the time equal to the time that the previous nation was active works as a waiting time.

For example, if I had a nation CTE that was 4 Years 2 Months old, the waiting time to refound a nation with that name should be 4 years 2 Months.

That's far too biased in favor of re-use, imho. We really do have people come back and pick up their old nations five or ten years later, and that's a great thing. You might want to come back in ten years, too! There isn't such a shortage of good names that we need to re-use all of them.

Wouldn't it save more time in the future, if their ever is a shortage?

Esternial wrote:

Jinwoy wrote:
I'm somewhat agreeing to keeping mod-names or DOS nations like permnantly reserved, my argument applies to nations that cte'd.
If there is a reason, I would like to hear it?

I meant that nations that CTE can also have a negative reputation. There are names in II that are associated with bad RP'ers or overall troublemakers.

You should ask Moderation for that.

One reason would be to allow people to return to their nations after a long time.

God forbid one should make another Verbluffen.

[violet] wrote:

Gest wrote:Would it be possible to put recycled nations, the ones that were released with a less than 500 million population, on a faster second release date, i.e they wouldn't have to wait the whole 5 year period,

Yes, it's possible, and it's also possible to base it on "time used" as mentioned above.

Then for the love of all that is holy, please consider implementing either for previously recycled nations. Time used would seem to be an extreme solution and I can see people complaining if that were implemented.

Fezkovia wrote:

Esternial wrote:I meant that nations that CTE can also have a negative reputation. There are names in II that are associated with bad RP'ers or overall troublemakers.

You should ask Moderation for that.

One reason would be to allow people to return to their nations after a long time.

God forbid one should make another Verbluffen.

I believe that's a soiled nation so it shouldn't even apply/be possible. Correct me if I'm wrong.

What about a checkbox (i.e. similar to the vacation mode) on the Settings page? It could allow R/D puppets (for example) to be returned to the list of available nation names after a shorter period of time. (i.e. 1 year versus 5 years)

I don't claim to be an expert in military gameplay, but I know that both raiders and defenders may have multiple puppets that they use for raids and liberations. If those are not the primary nations for the players, they may not have as much personal attachment to a given nation name.

Mousebumples wrote:What about a checkbox (i.e. similar to the vacation mode) on the Settings page? It could allow R/D puppets (for example) to be returned to the list of available nation names after a shorter period of time. (i.e. 1 year versus 5 years)

I don't claim to be an expert in military gameplay, but I know that both raiders and defenders may have multiple puppets that they use for raids and liberations. If those are not the primary nations for the players, they may not have as much personal attachment to a given nation name.

And what about the useless cte and was very inactive nation with 3 Billion?

Indian Empire wrote:

Mousebumples wrote:What about a checkbox (i.e. similar to the vacation mode) on the Settings page? It could allow R/D puppets (for example) to be returned to the list of available nation names after a shorter period of time. (i.e. 1 year versus 5 years)

I don't claim to be an expert in military gameplay, but I know that both raiders and defenders may have multiple puppets that they use for raids and liberations. If those are not the primary nations for the players, they may not have as much personal attachment to a given nation name.

And what about the useless cte and was very inactive nation with 3 Billion?

How do you know retroactively if someone was "very inactive" ? Just because someone doesn't have the time to login to their nation every 5 minutes doesn't mean that they don't care about their nation or that they don't want to come back to NS and play with that nation at some point in the future.

Indian Empire wrote:

Mousebumples wrote:What about a checkbox (i.e. similar to the vacation mode) on the Settings page? It could allow R/D puppets (for example) to be returned to the list of available nation names after a shorter period of time. (i.e. 1 year versus 5 years)

I don't claim to be an expert in military gameplay, but I know that both raiders and defenders may have multiple puppets that they use for raids and liberations. If those are not the primary nations for the players, they may not have as much personal attachment to a given nation name.

And what about the useless cte and was very inactive nation with 3 Billion?

If someone was around long enough to reach 3 billion population, they were not inactive or useless. Keep in mind, the vast majority of Nationstates players do not use the forums, and are content to occasionally answer issues without ever engaging with the forum community. Your definition of "useless" and "inactive" is not the same as ours.