Embassy of the NPO

[Yokiria]

Incorrect.

Please educate me with a game defined meaning then.

I see you're hiding behind technicalities. There are a lot of things that the game does not define that do exist within it. Griefing is one of them.

[Jar Wattinree]

Please educate me with a game defined meaning then.

I see you're hiding behind technicalities. There are a lot of things that the game does not define that do exist within it. Griefing is one of them.

I look forward to your objections to every single raiding community that ever has existed or will exist, then. Say, there's even a mechanical definition for it. Oh right, it's called Defending.

[Myrth]

ITT: Myrth declares that the best reason he can give for dispassionately removing Pacifican natives to speed up the new leader's ascendance is "because I said so".

How fortunate that, as legitimate government of the Pacific, we don't have to justify ourselves to you.

[Pierconium]

Please educate me with a game defined meaning then.

I see you're hiding behind technicalities. There are a lot of things that the game does not define that do exist within it. Griefing is one of them.

I fail to see how pointing to facts is hiding behind anything, but okay.

What is your ‘definition’ of griefing?

I created one earlier today as well:

Griefing - the act of disagreeing with another nation on Gameplay, thus causing them grief.

Seems just as legitimate.

[Airengard]

I see a lot of shit slinging, a lot of attempts to stir up drama and more importantly, somehow managing to completely ignore people like Old Hope in favour of stirring the previosly mentioned shit.
The ‘issue answerer’s and roleplayers’ you’re crying tears of blood for were barely there. Many (if not most or all) of them were literally just logging in, not even touching the issues. But because it is convenient to your rethoric, what might as well be ghosts have now become very important and oh so wounded members of the community. Your arguments become less and less coherent as time goes by...

[Yokiria]

I see you're hiding behind technicalities. There are a lot of things that the game does not define that do exist within it. Griefing is one of them.

I look forward to your objections to every single raiding community that ever has existed or will exist, then. Say, there's even a mechanical definition for it. Oh right, it's called Defending.

I have participated in defending before, and may do so in the future. I additionally have many objections to raiding, including the effect on individual nations' attempts to play the game undisturbed.

I see you're hiding behind technicalities. There are a lot of things that the game does not define that do exist within it. Griefing is one of them.

I fail to see how pointing to facts is hiding behind anything, but okay.

You seemed to be specifying that you be provided with a "Game defined" meaning, in an attempt to argue that because there is a lack of a game-defined meaning, there is no such thing as griefing at all. I believe that to be a technicality, and explained how. Considering that the Order you belong to is facing accusations of griefing, and you are arguing against those accusations, describing you "hiding behind technicalities" refers to you using the fact there is no game-defined meaning to argue against the accusations. I hope that clears up any confusion you may have regarding how I have worded things.

What is your ‘definition’ of griefing?

For NationStates, a definition I would supply to those in a hypothetical command of mine would be: An unnecessary, avoidable, and malicious action that has the potential to cause grief towards a large group of players.

The definition would need to be applied reasonably, as all definitions should be.

I feel that applying that definition to what the NPO has done would not be unreasonable. Aleisyr could have "burned" influence in other manners. Of the 135 nations ejected to "burn" Aleisyr's influence, the potential to cause grief is there. The responses I have been able to read thus far about those ejected display a remarkable lack of empathy and a certain level of maliciousness, as if these 135 nations were simply excess calories that the Pacific needed to burn.

I created one earlier today as well:

Griefing - the act of disagreeing with another nation on Gameplay, thus causing them grief.

Seems just as legitimate.

Then you may enforce that definition on those under your guidance in the NPO, Consul. It would certainly help the NPO's image here.

[Armaros]

I see a lot of shit slinging, a lot of attempts to stir up drama and more importantly, somehow managing to completely ignore people like Old Hope in favour of stirring the previosly mentioned shit.
The ‘issue answerer’s and roleplayers’ you’re crying tears of blood for were barely there. Many (if not most or all) of them were literally just logging in, not even touching the issues. But because it is convenient to your rethoric, what might as well be ghosts have now become very important and oh so wounded members of the community. Your arguments become less and less coherent as time goes by...

Ah, lovely, a half assed attempt by someone who probably doesn't even know what's going. Now, please tell me, why should we believe anything Old Hope says? After his last time (that I'm aware of) talking about NPO related stuff, he threw around 3 mountains of complete bullshit.

Yes, because you completely know that for 100% sure. I'm sure you checked upon all 130 something.

Puppet, please go back to hailing Pacifica, because that made more sense then this.

EDIT: Since you keep insisting I should not dismiss this:

And I'm going to take a minute here for some self-awareness. I know that Cormac and I are your usual voices from the peanut gallery of this forum. This time, though, there's really something serious there. We aren't crying wolf, there's an actual wolf here. If TBH did this, or any other UCR, they'd be universally condemned forever. This is a lot of innocent players getting kicked out of their home. Check into it for yourself. This is something that shouldn't go unnoticed just because of who's pointing it out.

That's wrong.
If TBH would eject(not ban) all nations who aren't active in their region no one whould be surprised. Nor would most people have anything against it.

Except, except - the entire defender world, several indies and the NPO if it was in a GCR. Try again.

The reason is simple: These people weren't active in the community, they can always come back if they are suddenly interested in partipiciation in The Pacific(they weren't banned), and the place of residence has no effect on being able to answer issues. "Over 100 nations were ejected" sounds bad, but isn't, really.

Nope, because logging in only to realise you were kicked for no reason whatsoever will totally not make people feel unwelcomed.

[Airengard]

I see a lot of shit slinging, a lot of attempts to stir up drama and more importantly, somehow managing to completely ignore people like Old Hope in favour of stirring the previosly mentioned shit.
The ‘issue answerer’s and roleplayers’ you’re crying tears of blood for were barely there. Many (if not most or all) of them were literally just logging in, not even touching the issues. But because it is convenient to your rethoric, what might as well be ghosts have now become very important and oh so wounded members of the community. Your arguments become less and less coherent as time goes by...

Ah, lovely, a half assed attempt by someone who probably doesn't even know what's going. Now, please tell me, why should we believe anything Old Hope says? After his last time (that I'm aware of) talking about NPO related stuff, he threw around 3 mountains of complete bullshit.

Yes, because you completely know that for 100% sure. I'm sure you checked upon all 130 something.

Puppet, please go back to hailing Pacifica, because that made more sense then this.

Aaaah, nope. I would call your attempt half assed. You first relied on an ad hominem attack to dismiss a logical argument. If he had been rude or something, I'd maybe consider the ad hominem acceptable, but nope. You couldn't dismiss what he said, so you attacked his character. Truly the mark of a demagogue there. Then you proceeded to make an argument that relied on information you did not have and could not confirm by yourself. I did in fact check every single one of them. What I said is confirmed, most if not all are pretty much ghosts. There is doubt about 1 or 2 but even those barely have any activity so it's probably them just doing their monthly login and going 'Oh, might as well click a single issue'.
You consistently failed at using any decent logical argument and then proceeded to dismiss my opinion due to being a 'puppet' which I am in fact not, [redacted as I broke the rules due to ignorance]. Must be easy to live when you can disregard any opposition as being a puppet.

[Big Bad Badger]

We wouldn’t know, the membership of the APC seems so changeable these days, how would we even find out their opinions?

And yet I remain in the Pacific.

Yes, you remain in the Pacific, where the NPO today ejected 135 natives for no reason. Let's stay on track here. I know that's difficult for you to do, because it turns out you're not very good at defending the indefensible, which is why you constantly deflect and try to talk about other things.

Why does the NPO believe it's okay to indiscriminately eject natives who have done absolutely nothing to warrant ejection?

The only thing wrong with this is that it wasn't done a month ago.

[Armaros]

Ah, lovely, a half assed attempt by someone who probably doesn't even know what's going. Now, please tell me, why should we believe anything Old Hope says? After his last time (that I'm aware of) talking about NPO related stuff, he threw around 3 mountains of complete bullshit.

Yes, because you completely know that for 100% sure. I'm sure you checked upon all 130 something.

Puppet, please go back to hailing Pacifica, because that made more sense then this.

Aaaah, nope. I would call your attempt half assed. You first relied on an ad hominem attack to dismiss a logical argument. If he had been rude or something, I'd maybe consider the ad hominem acceptable, but nope. You couldn't dismiss what he said, so you attacked his character. Truly the mark of a demagogue there. Then you proceeded to make an argument that relied on information you did not have and could not confirm by yourself. I did in fact check every single one of them. What I said is confirmed, most if not all are pretty much ghosts. There is doubt about 1 or 2 but even those barely have any activity so it's probably them just doing their monthly login and going 'Oh, might as well click a single issue'.
You consistently failed at using any decent logical argument and then proceeded to dismiss my opinion due to being a 'puppet' which I am in fact not you self righteous prick. Must be easy to live when you can disregard any opposition as being a puppet.

Because I'm totally known for attacking people's character when I disagree with them.

Or maybe I would be if calling people out on writing posts full of IC bullshit is attacking someone's character. Calling someone a self righteous prick on the other hand...

If you truly checked every single one of them, good on you and I retract what I said about it then, although I still dont think kicking people out who dont do any harm other then just being there is very good.

One last thing: if I see someone I've seen only once or twice before making arguements that obviously suits someone's agenda, I usually assume it's a puppet. You're wrong to believe I "dismiss anyone's opinion" by thinking they're a puppet. And you can check my posts for that too.

[Airengard]

Aaaah, nope. I would call your attempt half assed. You first relied on an ad hominem attack to dismiss a logical argument. If he had been rude or something, I'd maybe consider the ad hominem acceptable, but nope. You couldn't dismiss what he said, so you attacked his character. Truly the mark of a demagogue there. Then you proceeded to make an argument that relied on information you did not have and could not confirm by yourself. I did in fact check every single one of them. What I said is confirmed, most if not all are pretty much ghosts. There is doubt about 1 or 2 but even those barely have any activity so it's probably them just doing their monthly login and going 'Oh, might as well click a single issue'.
You consistently failed at using any decent logical argument and then proceeded to dismiss my opinion due to being a 'puppet' which I am in fact not you self righteous prick. Must be easy to live when you can disregard any opposition as being a puppet.

Because I'm totally known for attacking people's character when I disagree with them.

Or maybe I would be if calling people out on writing posts full of IC bullshit is attacking someone's character. Calling someone a self righteous prick on the other hand...

If you truly checked every single one of them, good on you and I retract what I said about it then, although I still dont think kicking people out who dont do any harm other then just being there is very good.

One last thing: if I see someone I've seen only once or twice before making arguements that obviously suits someone's agenda, I usually assume it's a puppet. You're wrong to believe I "dismiss anyone's opinion" by thinking they're a puppet. And you can check my posts for that too.

I never said you're known for it. I observed what I believe is a case of it and called you out on it. Besides, I did counter everything you said with logic before calling you [redacted for the same reason as my previous post].
Clearing nations with high influence, inactive and with a risk of being puppets can be useful for regional security, but that is starting to enter into a whole other topic. In the end no one was really harmed as they weren't banned, so if they become active they can return to the Pacific or go to any other region they feel like going to.
Assuming everyone new is a puppet is a really shoddy stance as it alienates newcomers and instantly sets their opinion of yourself as negative, but whether to keep doing that or not is up to you.

[The Seeker of Power]

Someone please show me an official document, treaty or guide that says that Cormac's opinion defines what is legitimate in this realm? I thought the delegacy defined it, but who am I to follow Max rules? *rolling eyes*

I take it you're fine with ejecting 135 native nations for no reason but to burn influence? Disgraceful.

As I have said many times, many many many times: I consider all actions that the rules of the realm allow to be valid and legitimate. OOC Wise: where in the game rules it says banjecting or ejecting is not legitimate?
So yes. This is MY way of viewing the game. Has always been

[Pierconium]

Yokira, can you specify how a nation sitting in the Pacific answering issues (or not answering issues as a lot of those nations are just sitting and not even doing that) is different than a nation sitting in TRR answering issues? Just curious.

Simply because you subjectively have ideas on what is a ‘better’ way to burn influence doesn’t make it objectively so. We decided to investigate the highest influence inactive non-WA nations and remove them. There was nothing malicious (another subjective term) about it.

Just because you have fabricated a definition of griefing that doesn’t actually exist within the game doesn’t mean anyone else has any need to adhere to it or pay it any mind when carrying out the functions of the region.

[Armaros]

Clearing nations with high influence, inactive and with a risk of being puppets can be useful for regional security, but that is starting to enter into a whole other topic. In the end no one was really harmed as they weren't banned, so if they become active they can return to the Pacific or go to any other region they feel like going to.

Ah yes, because with the amount of endorsements (350?) you really are threatened by a bunch of roleplayers and issue solvers.

Assuming everyone new is a puppet is a really shoddy stance as it alienates newcomers and instantly sets their opinion of yourself as negative, but whether to keep doing that or not is up to you.

Welcome to gameplay. And I don't particularly mind people having a negative opinion of me when my region is officially at war with theirs.

[Pierconium]

Clearing nations with high influence, inactive and with a risk of being puppets can be useful for regional security, but that is starting to enter into a whole other topic. In the end no one was really harmed as they weren't banned, so if they become active they can return to the Pacific or go to any other region they feel like going to.

Ah yes, because with the amount of endorsements (350?) you really are threatened by a bunch of roleplayers and issue solvers.

Assuming everyone new is a puppet is a really shoddy stance as it alienates newcomers and instantly sets their opinion of yourself as negative, but whether to keep doing that or not is up to you.

Welcome to gameplay. And I don't particularly mind people having a negative opinion of me when my region is officially at war with theirs.

And removing inactive non-WAs is now the hill the APC wishes to die on because everything else has collapsed.

Good to know.

Good luck with it.

[Armaros]

Ah yes, because with the amount of endorsements (350?) you really are threatened by a bunch of roleplayers and issue solvers.

Welcome to gameplay. And I don't particularly mind people having a negative opinion of me when my region is officially at war with theirs.

And removing inactive non-WAs is now the hill the APC wishes to die on because everything else has collapsed.

Lame. You've kept saying the APC is dead for weeks now. Get something new. And aside from that, downplaying the fact you just kicked out over 100 nations who didn't pose a threat in the slightest does not erase the fact you did for no reason.

[Pierconium]

And removing inactive non-WAs is now the hill the APC wishes to die on because everything else has collapsed.

Lame. You've kept saying the APC is dead for weeks now. Get something new. And aside from that, downplaying the fact you just kicked out over 100 nations who didn't pose a threat in the slightest does not erase the fact you did for no reason.

Why do I need anything new? The APC is dead practically speaking, if it could ever have been said to be fully alive. It has no means of attacking the Pacific and will never be able to destroy the NPO. It is a failed concept.

We did it for a very specific reason. And? What is the APC going to do about it? Are they going to declare war on every feeder that ejects nations now?

What about when regions within the APC eject all nations in a region and destroy their history? Weird.

[Armaros]

Lame. You've kept saying the APC is dead for weeks now. Get something new. And aside from that, downplaying the fact you just kicked out over 100 nations who didn't pose a threat in the slightest does not erase the fact you did for no reason.

Why do I need anything new? The APC is dead practically speaking, if it could ever have been said to be fully alive. It has no means of attacking the Pacific and will never be able to destroy the NPO. It is a failed concept.

Ignoring the fact it's quite the thing to be attempting to bring down a GCR government. As you, of all people, probably know quite well.

We did it for a very specific reason. And? What is the APC going to do about it? Are they going to declare war on every feeder that ejects nations now?

Who says we need to do anything about it? It just shows what the Pacific is willing to do to prevent anyone from even coming close to forming a vague threat. One also has to wonder what you were so afraid of that you felt the need to purge everyone you suspected of forming even a vague threat.

What about when regions within the APC eject all nations in a region and destroy their history? Weird.

Weirdly enough, we don't kick out people in mass purges from our own regions. Oh and also, as I'm assuming you're referring to a particular incident - we offered our help in building a new region for them.

[Myrth]

Why do I need anything new? The APC is dead practically speaking, if it could ever have been said to be fully alive. It has no means of attacking the Pacific and will never be able to destroy the NPO. It is a failed concept.

Ignoring the fact it's quite the thing to be attempting to bring down a GCR government. As you, of all people, probably know quite well.

People have been threatening to bring down the NPO for years. Closest they ever came was when an update bug removed the delegate from power, and they still failed. Better hope the admins introduce a few glitches to the update code or we'll be having this same debate in another 15 years.

[Yokiria]

Yokira, can you specify how a nation sitting in the Pacific answering issues (or not answering issues as a lot of those nations are just sitting and not even doing that) is different than a nation sitting in TRR answering issues? Just curious.

The latter cannot be ejected.

Simply because you subjectively have ideas on what is a ‘better’ way to burn influence doesn’t make it objectively so.

I believe that my ideas should be objective fact, but unfortunately the world does not work that way.

We decided to investigate the highest influence inactive non-WA nations and remove them. There was nothing malicious (another subjective term) about it.

I choose not to take you at your word.

Just because you have fabricated a definition of griefing that doesn’t actually exist within the game doesn’t mean anyone else has any need to adhere to it or pay it any mind when carrying out the functions of the region.

I believe you asked me for my definition of griefing. I gave you my definition of griefing. I did not fabricate anything.

You also seem to be under the mistaken impression that I need to be told that others have no need to adhere to outsider definitions of griefing, when I stated in the previous comment: "You may enforce (your) definition on those under your guidance in the NPO" and "a definition I would supply to those in a hypothetical command of mine would be (the following)". This is evidence that I know how these things work.

This is the Gameplay forum, Pierconium. We are not in our respective regions, nor are we officially speaking for them. I am allowed to take my subjective opinions and apply it to the actions of your region, and you are then allowed to dismiss them with your own subjective opinions. We can then meet again and do it all over again.

Now that we have both explained something we both already know to one another, I feel that we are even.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

People have been threatening to bring down the NPO for years.....<snip>

It’s been one of the few constants in this game. Someone starts a movement to destroy the NPO, nothing happens, repeat ad nauseam.

[Pierconium]

People have been threatening to bring down the NPO for years.....<snip>

It’s been one of the few constants in this game. Someone starts a movement to destroy the NPO, nothing happens, repeat ad nauseam.

It is somewhat humorous that the argument against success is that it is ‘hard’ and then they comment that I know something about it being difficult. I can’t recall a time when I ever failed at anything in this game, including taking down GCR governments. Too bad it is too hard for them.

Also, hello.

[The Seeker of Power]

People have been threatening to bring down the NPO for years.....<snip>

It’s been one of the few constants in this game. Someone starts a movement to destroy the NPO, nothing happens, repeat ad nauseam.

We should start a movement to destroy the Marsupial Threat instead, Sire.

[Armaros]

It’s been one of the few constants in this game. Someone starts a movement to destroy the NPO, nothing happens, repeat ad nauseam.

It is somewhat humorous that the argument against success is that it is ‘hard’ and then they comment that I know something about it being difficult. I can’t recall a time when I ever failed at anything in this game, including taking down GCR governments. Too bad it is too hard for them.

Also, hello.

Except for keeping the NPO outside of subversive activities.

Also, that's an interesting statement there. Never, right? viewtopic.php?f=12&t=419561&p=32235673#p32235673

And I never said "too" hard. Please don't put words in my mouth, thank you.

[Pierconium]

It is somewhat humorous that the argument against success is that it is ‘hard’ and then they comment that I know something about it being difficult. I can’t recall a time when I ever failed at anything in this game, including taking down GCR governments. Too bad it is too hard for them.

Also, hello.

Except for keeping the NPO outside of subversive activities.

Also, that's an interesting statement there. Never, right? viewtopic.php?f=12&t=419561&p=32235673#p32235673

And I never said "too" hard. Please don't put words in my mouth, thank you.

Thanks for the laugh. That is a statement of me resigning because I refused to compromise my principles on GCR sovereignty, not because of any personal failing on my part. Not sure what your point is with it.

Also, so if you destroy a region and then offer to help them rebuild afterward that makes it okay? Just clarifying.