NationStates

Mallorea and Riva wrote:Will the writer of the above piece be coming around to explain their views or was this just hit and run?

Are you referring to Personal Interest or me?

If me, all I have to say was said. It was just to clarify the factual events.

Lun Noir wrote:

Mallorea and Riva wrote:Will the writer of the above piece be coming around to explain their views or was this just hit and run?

Are you referring to Personal Interest or me?

If me, all I have to say was said. It was just to clarify the factual events.

I was referring to Personal Interest. My comments towards Afforess can be applied to your own comments without modification.

Mallorea and Riva wrote:

Shadow Afforess wrote:I have interpreted the rules literally many times in the past without undue concern.

I'll take that as a no then and conclude that your judgment was very faulty, which is unfortunate. I thought the rules regarding the matter implicated that such actions should not be done. The rules cannot possibly seek to outline everything that will get you into trouble after all.

Where I am from, one can not be prosecuted for implications. Legal codes and rules exist for a reason.

And NS is not the real world.

Mad Jack wrote:And NS is not the real world.

What tipped you off?

A great many things.

You seem to be labouring under the impression the two are one and the same.

Shadow Afforess wrote:

Mallorea and Riva wrote:That's posting past ban.

As I said, the rules nowhere mentioned that, so they should be clarified.

It's a pretty specific case. I don't think anyone could predict this and make a "what happens if you give your puppet to someone and gets banned on your main account?" clause in the rulings somewhere.

However, in light of this Moderator decision, I do agree an expansion of the rules is required in case people make the same mistake you did.

I consider the rules to be a barebones basis, which requires unique cases to expand on these rules and allow harsher/softer treatment for specific cases where it's justified. The rules need to be fine-tuned, and this method introduces precedent.

I do find it hard to believe that you couldn't guess that, since both your main nation and your puppet operated from the same IP address, giving your puppet to someone else could possibly spell trouble in the foreseeable future.

It's unfortunate, and a lesson learnt for all of us.

If they start trying to allow for case-by-case, we really will have rampant mod bias.

Scolopendra wrote:We do not consider third-party appeals.

~Scolo der Mod

Never was asking for it.

Ambroscus Koth wrote:

Personal Interest wrote:I cannot sit idly by as injustice is served to someone who has done little to no wrong and done much good to the NationStates community.

Unibot, is that you?

I really did lol at this

Mallorea and Riva wrote:

Personal Interest wrote:It is Personal Interest's belief that the nation of Afforess is innocent of the charges brought against him, and his previous punishments harsher than if performed by a different nation.

That's demonstrably incorrect. Posting past ban results in the deletion of both the posting nation and the banned nation. It says as much in the rules.

What Afforess has been banned from the forum previously has been much milder than many many other things that have been spewed on the Gameplay forum.

Lun Noir wrote:

Sedgistan wrote:"I wasn't in control of my nation when X happened" is probably the most common excuse we hear for rules violations. Nonetheless, we do look into it when people make that claim, as we did in this case. The claim that Afforess handed his nation over didn't match the evidence. When high-profile players have a nation deleted, it's often claimed that they were singled out for special treatment. That is not the case - we enforced the same rules that apply to every other player, and acted the same way we would have done with any other player who committed the offences.

A minor correction, your investigation may not have been wholy accurate, and I'd rather just get all the facts out so this speculation can stop flying around. Afforess is not lying when he said that he forfeited erudite_observer.

Afforess did give erudite_observer to me, and had me change the password without telling him what it was. It was intended to be a permanent transfer of the nation. To cement his decision to step out of Gameplay, he then requested that I leave a post about the closure of the newspaper, which I did. The final login to NS and the NS Forums originated from a computer in my control, not Afforess'.

When I saw the two nations get deleted, I felt terrible, and still do. I did not realize this would be the outcome.

I am not stating this in any attempt to sway the decision of the mods, just stating for the record what actually happened.

Thank you for the clarification Lun Noir.

Mallorea and Riva wrote:Will the writer of the above piece be coming around to explain their views or was this just hit and run?

I never have, nor never will hit and run on an article.

Personal Interest wrote:

Mallorea and Riva wrote: That's demonstrably incorrect. Posting past ban results in the deletion of both the posting nation and the banned nation. It says as much in the rules.

What Afforess has been banned from the forum previously has been much milder than many many other things that have been spewed on the Gameplay forum.

Then look at the context of those comments and perhaps you will understand.

Personal Interest wrote:

Mallorea and Riva wrote:Will the writer of the above piece be coming around to explain their views or was this just hit and run?

I never have, nor never will hit and run on an article.

Then perhaps you will provide examples of extreme bias against Capitalist Paradise and Afforess? Links to incidents? Theories as to why Afforess has been singled out?

Mallorea and Riva wrote:

Personal Interest wrote:
What Afforess has been banned from the forum previously has been much milder than many many other things that have been spewed on the Gameplay forum.

Then look at the context of those comments and perhaps you will understand.

Personal Interest wrote:
:eyebrow: I never have, nor never will hit and run on an article.

Then perhaps you will provide examples of extreme bias against Capitalist Paradise and Afforess? Links to incidents? Theories as to why Afforess has been singled out?

I knew journalistic objectivity was dead.

First, this thread is going firmly off the rails. This is not the appropriate place to argue about a moderation decision. Probably best to lock this one down. If Afforess or Lun Noir wishes to restart their GP newspaper/interview service thread, they're welcome to do so.

Second, the evidence available to the moderators does not support the claim that the nation Erudite Observer had changed hands prior to Afforess' ban or the post-past-ban that led to the deletions of both. If he wishes for additional followup, I'm fairly sure he knows where to file that request.


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Admin
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku