by Stellonia » Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:39 pm
by Leppikania » Tue Feb 02, 2016 4:15 pm
Stellonia wrote:For instance, nations could be barred from [...] holding a particular function as a Regional Officer,
by Cresenthia » Tue Feb 02, 2016 4:16 pm
Stellonia wrote:Currently, there is only one type of ban: a permanent one, in which nations are not permitted to enter a region or post on its Regional Message Board. This is a bit limited, which is why I feel that a larger quantity of ban options should be made available to Regional Founders, Delegates, and Regional Officers. For instance, nations could be barred from posting on the RMB, from holding a particular function as a Regional Officer, or from entering a region while still being able to post on the RMB as an embassy nation (this may come in handy as a security measure).
What do you think, NS?
by Stellonia » Tue Feb 02, 2016 4:19 pm
Cresenthia wrote:Also, isn't this somewhat similar to the proposal to allow those with Communication authorities to prevent nations from posting to the RMB without banning them?
by Leppikania » Tue Feb 02, 2016 4:37 pm
by Stellonia » Tue Feb 02, 2016 7:50 pm
Leppikania wrote:Stellonia wrote:What if some other person with Executive authority in your region decided to appoint someone in spite of your objections?
If you're the delegate, remember that the founder overrides your authority. If you're the founder, unappoint them and send a stern TG to the delegate. If they appoint that officer again, unappoint them and take away the delegate's executive authority.
by Imperium Anglorum » Tue Feb 02, 2016 8:04 pm
Stellonia wrote:Leppikania wrote:If you're the delegate, remember that the founder overrides your authority. If you're the founder, unappoint them and send a stern TG to the delegate. If they appoint that officer again, unappoint them and take away the delegate's executive authority.
What if the political situation of the region somehow necessitates that the delegate have executive authority?
by Nariterrr » Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:20 pm
Stellonia wrote:Currently, there is only one type of ban: a permanent one, in which nations are not permitted to enter a region or post on its Regional Message Board. This is a bit limited, which is why I feel that a larger quantity of ban options should be made available to Regional Founders, Delegates, and Regional Officers. For instance, nations could be barred from posting on the RMB, from holding a particular function as a Regional Officer, or from entering a region while still being able to post on the RMB as an embassy nation (this may come in handy as a security measure).
What do you think, NS?
by Enfaru » Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:30 pm
by The Blaatschapen » Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:50 pm
Stellonia wrote:Currently, there is only one type of ban: a permanent one, in which nations are not permitted to enter a region or post on its Regional Message Board. This is a bit limited, which is why I feel that a larger quantity of ban options should be made available to Regional Founders, Delegates, and Regional Officers. For instance, nations could be barred from posting on the RMB, from holding a particular function as a Regional Officer, or from entering a region while still being able to post on the RMB as an embassy nation (this may come in handy as a security measure).
What do you think, NS?
Ballotonia wrote:You can already chose from which regions nation can post on your RMB, by selecting only those to exchange an embassy with those regions' nations you trust.
For RMB posting control we have the suppression mechanism, allowing a founder or delegate to suppress undesirable posts from the RMB.
The only option to prevent nations from posting to your RMB in the first place is to ban them from your region.
Note that the price for silencing others is it being public that you do so. This is on purpose.
Ballotonia
by Enfaru » Thu Feb 04, 2016 10:14 am
by Dooom35796821595 » Sat Feb 06, 2016 10:10 am
Enfaru wrote:As well as being able to kick/ban by IP address would be helpful.
No I don't mean actually expose the IP address, just a button that says: "Ban all accounts from region associated with this account?" Of course, that'd catch some shared puppets but ho hum you shouldn't be sharing anyway. Though an exception rule would be useful...
by Mallorea and Riva » Sat Feb 06, 2016 10:19 am
Dooom35796821595 wrote:Enfaru wrote:As well as being able to kick/ban by IP address would be helpful.
No I don't mean actually expose the IP address, just a button that says: "Ban all accounts from region associated with this account?" Of course, that'd catch some shared puppets but ho hum you shouldn't be sharing anyway. Though an exception rule would be useful...
I agree, a way to kick the puppets of an offender would be a useful tool, it would also be nice if there was a way to find out if two nations were being controlled by the same person.
by Dooom35796821595 » Sat Feb 06, 2016 10:25 am
Mallorea and Riva wrote:Dooom35796821595 wrote:
I agree, a way to kick the puppets of an offender would be a useful tool, it would also be nice if there was a way to find out if two nations were being controlled by the same person.
That is not going to happen. Privacy concerns as well as legitimate gameplay functions would be compromised by such a system, not to mention how incredibly complex it would have to be.
by Enfaru » Sat Feb 06, 2016 4:07 pm
Mallorea and Riva wrote:Dooom35796821595 wrote:
I agree, a way to kick the puppets of an offender would be a useful tool, it would also be nice if there was a way to find out if two nations were being controlled by the same person.
That is not going to happen. Privacy concerns as well as legitimate gameplay functions would be compromised by such a system, not to mention how incredibly complex it would have to be.
by Wrapper » Sat Feb 06, 2016 4:27 pm
Enfaru wrote:Considering the FAQ advises strongly against any use of puppets
by Enfaru » Sat Feb 06, 2016 4:47 pm
Euroslavia wrote:Is sharing nations among multiple players allowed?
It is allowed, but moderation's stance on the act is to avoid it as an unnecessary risk.
by Wrapper » Sat Feb 06, 2016 4:50 pm
Enfaru wrote:You're right. It doesn't, I could have sworn I remember reading it there, I'm either mistaken or it was removed from the FAQ.
However... it is in the OSRS.
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... #p16394962 under "Regarding Sharing Accounts"
And I quoteEuroslavia wrote:Is sharing nations among multiple players allowed?
It is allowed, but moderation's stance on the act is to avoid it as an unnecessary risk.
by Leppikania » Sat Feb 06, 2016 4:52 pm
Enfaru wrote:You're right. It doesn't, I could have sworn I remember reading it there, I'm either mistaken or it was removed from the FAQ.
However... it is in the OSRS.
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... #p16394962 under "Regarding Sharing Accounts"
And I quoteEuroslavia wrote:Is sharing nations among multiple players allowed?
It is allowed, but moderation's stance on the act is to avoid it as an unnecessary risk.
by Reploid Productions » Sat Feb 06, 2016 4:57 pm
[violet] wrote:Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
by The Blaatschapen » Sat Feb 06, 2016 5:37 pm
by Reploid Productions » Sat Feb 06, 2016 5:42 pm
The Blaatschapen wrote:
Just to add to all the things already said:
A defender liberation of a region would have at most 1 shot with this. If it fails then after that, the blanket puppet ban would ensure that all puppets of defender X would be banned from entering.
[violet] wrote:Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
by Luna Amore » Sat Feb 06, 2016 5:53 pm
Enfaru wrote:Mallorea and Riva wrote:That is not going to happen. Privacy concerns as well as legitimate gameplay functions would be compromised by such a system, not to mention how incredibly complex it would have to be.
What "legitimate gameplay functions"? What precisely might these be? I'm not asking anyone to reveal IP addresses, nor am I asking anyone to reveal whose puppets are whose. I'm just asking for a blanket ban. if in regionX, If nationx_ip_add == nationy_ip_add then eject nationy end if eject nationx end if. We'd need to loop a few times of course, but I can't see how this would break "legitimate" gameplay functions.Considering the FAQ advises strongly against any use of puppetsConsidering the OSRS advises strongly against any use of puppets, but doesn't outlaw it simply because there are benefits to sharing accounts. However it's always been a long standing given, that if you associate with a puppet with someone who has a tendency to get into trouble, you risk the consequences of the very least having that puppet if not yourself as well punished.
And...no it would not have to be incredibly complex. If the code takes up more than 20 lines, then someone either has too much white space or they need to consider how they could have written their code in a more concise format. The use of ? is a good way to shorten some if statements.
The only thing I can see here, is that it *might* take up some cpu, in which case, it can be limited to run on cycles i.e at update or something. So an IP would be listed back end and if nations match that IP address in their history, then...eject. Many simpler ways of going through this.
by Lockdownn » Sat Feb 06, 2016 6:04 pm
The Blaatschapen wrote:
Just to add to all the things already said:
A defender liberation of a region would have at most 1 shot with this. If it fails then after that, the blanket puppet ban would ensure that all puppets of defender X would be banned from entering.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Hijntijs, Sol Nexus, The Terren Dominion, Tulambuco, Western Utah
Advertisement