Nation name release!

[Great Americain]

How many years does it take for a country that was reserved to be available again

[Bears Armed]

How many years does it take for a country that was reserved to be available again

viewtopic.php?p=7086706#p7086706

[Numenar]

Is there any chance of updating the name releases a little?

A name I've always wanted is at 600 million people but hasn't been used in over 15 years.

Since the population limit was changed from 250 to 500 million in the past, maybe we could update it to 750 million or even 1 billion for names last used 15 years ago? I don't think that's too unreasonable.

[Minecraftiana]

If a nation fails one condition, but fills another, does that count as permanently reserved? As in, do they only have to meet one of the many conditions? If so, 500 million might seem like too restrictive, given the nations that can easily reach a few billion in a couple of years to even months if they really play long and often.

[Minoa]

If a nation fails one condition, but fills another, does that count as permanently reserved? As in, do they only have to meet one of the many conditions? If so, 500 million might seem like too restrictive, given the nations that can easily reach a few billion in a couple of years to even months if they really play long and often.

The current situation is that if a nation name meets one of the ten rules, it is not available for reuse. For example, if a nation was deleted for breaking the rules, the name would be reserved even if the population was below 500 million at the time of deletion.

In my opinion, I feel that the current population limit could be replaced by a system where the waiting time increases with the population of the previous incarnation: for example:

• 5 years for nation with 500 million or less
• 6 years for nation with 1 billion
• 8 years for nation with 2 billion
• etc.

[Drawkland]

If a nation fails one condition, but fills another, does that count as permanently reserved? As in, do they only have to meet one of the many conditions? If so, 500 million might seem like too restrictive, given the nations that can easily reach a few billion in a couple of years to even months if they really play long and often.

The current situation is that if a nation name meets one of the ten rules, it is not available for reuse. For example, if a nation was deleted for breaking the rules, the name would be reserved even if the population was below 500 million at the time of deletion.

In my opinion, I feel that the current population limit could be replaced by a system where the waiting time increases with the population of the previous incarnation: for example:

• 5 years for nation with 500 million or less
• 6 years for nation with 1 billion
• 8 years for nation with 2 billion
• etc.

I definitely think a change to the population cap would be beneficial. The waiting time based on population is a solid concept.

I just think it's sorta necessary to up the cap when really anyone could hold a nation name forever based on logging in once after the initial creation. It's weird to me that there's all these other actions that will hold a nation name, but there's no way anybody would be able to achieve those things WITHOUT going over 500 million population. Unless it was an established user making a puppet specifically for that purpose (writing a WA resolution or an issue, for instance) and then immediately logging off and letting it die. People who haven't even unlocked the leader field for their nation yet are significant enough to have their name held forever. It's just a bit strange imo.

[Bears Armed]

I just think it's sorta necessary to up the cap when really anyone could hold a nation name forever based on logging in once after the initial creation. It's weird to me that there's all these other actions that will hold a nation name, but there's no way anybody would be able to achieve those things WITHOUT going over 500 million population. Unless it was an established user making a puppet specifically for that purpose (writing a WA resolution or an issue, for instance) and then immediately logging off and letting it die. People who haven't even unlocked the leader field for their nation yet are significant enough to have their name held forever. It's just a bit strange imo.

The nation might get DEATed in between doing the < WHATVER> and passing the threshold, of course: For example, there's been at least one GA (or was it NSUN?) proposal that had its author DEATed while it was still on the submissions page, although IIRC that one didn't actually pass...

Personally, the scale that I'd prefer is:
5 years _ 500 million
6 years _ 600 million
7 years _ 700 million
8 years _ 800 million
9 years _ 900 million
10 years (+) _ 1 billion

[The Brytish Isles]

I personally would really love to see a change to the name reservation system. I agree with Bears Armed’s proposal the most, it’s one I can get behind and find reasonable. There’s one name I really, really want to claim for roleplaying and lore building purposes, and it’s been dead for over 16 years but with a population of 800 million

[Soleanna]

I like the concept of a release based on population. However, the direction with 5 years off the bat is just as inconvenient as the current system.

First Proposal

• ≥ 750 Million - 3-8 Months
• ≥ 1 billion - 8-12 Months
• ≥ 1.5 Billion 1-2 Years

Second Proposal

The timeframe will be based on user activity, e.g. posts, issues answered, card deck, registered email and not just population.

For example, a nation with 500 population, however, answered very little issues. No posts whatsoever, a non-existent deck and no registered email. should hold for about 3 or so months compared to a nation with 2 billion, answered a few hundred issues, has a substantial deck, and a few hundred unique posts, and a registered email which should grant about maybe a year or so.

[Drawkland]

I just think it's sorta necessary to up the cap when really anyone could hold a nation name forever based on logging in once after the initial creation. It's weird to me that there's all these other actions that will hold a nation name, but there's no way anybody would be able to achieve those things WITHOUT going over 500 million population. Unless it was an established user making a puppet specifically for that purpose (writing a WA resolution or an issue, for instance) and then immediately logging off and letting it die. People who haven't even unlocked the leader field for their nation yet are significant enough to have their name held forever. It's just a bit strange imo.

The nation might get DEATed in between doing the < WHATVER> and passing the threshold, of course: For example, there's been at least one GA (or was it NSUN?) proposal that had its author DEATed while it was still on the submissions page, although IIRC that one didn't actually pass...

Personally, the scale that I'd prefer is:
5 years _ 500 million
6 years _ 600 million
7 years _ 700 million
8 years _ 800 million
9 years _ 900 million
10 years (+) _ 1 billion

I guess DEAT is the only exception, but obviously if somebody takes a name and spams the site until becoming DEAT then there's nothing you can do about that regardless.

The scale of 100 million per year starting at 5 is actually a really smart and simplistic system, and can be scaled up easily too. I'm a big fan of that.

[Ghost Land]

I like the concept of a release based on population. However, the direction with 5 years off the bat is just as inconvenient as the current system.

First Proposal

• ≥ 750 Million - 3-8 Months
• ≥ 1 billion - 8-12 Months
• ≥ 1.5 Billion 1-2 Years

Second Proposal

The timeframe will be based on user activity, e.g. posts, issues answered, card deck, registered email and not just population.

For example, a nation with 500 population, however, answered very little issues. No posts whatsoever, a non-existent deck and no registered email. should hold for about 3 or so months compared to a nation with 2 billion, answered a few hundred issues, has a substantial deck, and a few hundred unique posts, and a registered email which should grant about maybe a year or so.

I'd say your time frames are way too short. I've seen people come back after 14 years to nations of less than a billion people. They're of course the exception, but people often do come back from prolonged absences, so the idea of someone losing the name of a nation they spent years on just seems wrong to me. Heck, this nation was originally a puppet and was dead for two years, ceasing to exist with about 5.1 billion before I revived it last year. It takes almost a year to amass two billion people, so it doesn't make sense that someone could be able to play for a year, lose interest or have real-life obligations take over for a while, then come back a year or two later and find that someone else has swiped their name. Granted, I have some puppets like Gonna Wanna Hafta Gotta Cuz Posta Sposta (don't even ask) that I used for only a week or so in 2012 and never really cared much about, and I'd be very much okay with someone else reusing that name, as is permissible by the current standards. But anyone who invested a year or more into the game deserves to have their name reserved in case they come back at least in my opinion; it's only fair that way, especially considering the odds of people coming back. I know I'd be upset if I stumbled upon this site again 50 years from now and found another nation called "Ghost Land" other than my own running around.

[Gandoor]

I like the concept of a release based on population. However, the direction with 5 years off the bat is just as inconvenient as the current system.

First Proposal

• ≥ 750 Million - 3-8 Months
• ≥ 1 billion - 8-12 Months
• ≥ 1.5 Billion 1-2 Years

Second Proposal

The timeframe will be based on user activity, e.g. posts, issues answered, card deck, registered email and not just population.

For example, a nation with 500 population, however, answered very little issues. No posts whatsoever, a non-existent deck and no registered email. should hold for about 3 or so months compared to a nation with 2 billion, answered a few hundred issues, has a substantial deck, and a few hundred unique posts, and a registered email which should grant about maybe a year or so.

Honestly I feel any suggestion that the length of time until a name gets released for reused should be in months is doomed to fail from the start, even when accounting for exceptions like you did in your second posts.

Like, just going by your second idea (where it's based on activity), who's to say someone isn't mostly active off-site? They could spend most of their time participating on an off-site regional forum, maybe they post on their RMB, and telegram their friends. They don't bother posting on the official forums or really care about answering issues.

Maybe something comes up and they'll be away from the game for a few months, maybe they gotta focus on work/college/real life. Going by your activity suggestion, when they come back, they'll find that someone could've taken that name because they weren't that active on the game itself, but they were still active in the community.

[Refuge Isle]

For what it's worth, I support the suggestion that was floated by Minoa as a fair compromise between being respectful of players who may wish to return to the game after five years (like myself), but still freeing them up for people who have been looking at that 1.002 billion nation name from twelve years ago.

When so many other conditions protect players rights to their names, there should be some additional value added to the site supporter feature guarding your name, and less protection for someone who played for a few months long ago and has no intention of returning, if they are able to at all.

[Bormiar]

For what it's worth, I support the suggestion that was floated by Minoa as a fair compromise between being respectful of players who may wish to return to the game after five years (like myself), but still freeing them up for people who have been looking at that 1.002 billion nation name from twelve years ago.

It makes sense. If you only played for a few months 15 years ago and have never shown any inclination to refound a particular nation again, reserving the name seems unnecessary.

[Ghost Land]

For what it's worth, I support the suggestion that was floated by Minoa as a fair compromise between being respectful of players who may wish to return to the game after five years (like myself), but still freeing them up for people who have been looking at that 1.002 billion nation name from twelve years ago.

When so many other conditions protect players rights to their names, there should be some additional value added to the site supporter feature guarding your name, and less protection for someone who played for a few months long ago and has no intention of returning, if they are able to at all.

The site supporter feature already includes permanent name reservation.

For the record, I'm in favour of Bears Armed's suggestion, and I have been since he started floating it around years ago.

[Lord Dominator]

For what it's worth, I support the suggestion that was floated by Minoa as a fair compromise between being respectful of players who may wish to return to the game after five years (like myself), but still freeing them up for people who have been looking at that 1.002 billion nation name from twelve years ago.

When so many other conditions protect players rights to their names, there should be some additional value added to the site supporter feature guarding your name, and less protection for someone who played for a few months long ago and has no intention of returning, if they are able to at all.

The site supporter feature already includes permanent name reservation.

For the record, I'm in favour of Bears Armed's suggestion, and I have been since he started floating it around years ago.

I believe the point on Site Supporter was more a thought that under the current system it's essentially useless, given that it doesn't take entirely that long to get it via population.

[Refuge Isle]

I believe the point on Site Supporter was more a thought that under the current system it's essentially useless, given that it doesn't take entirely that long to get it via population.

LD has my intention correct. It takes some three months of maintaining your account to reserve the name for all eternity. So when you buy a site supporter, that perk is conveyed to your nation for people who want to reserve their name but who also happen to abandon the game two months into playing it.

[Arumdaum]

I like the concept of a release based on population. However, the direction with 5 years off the bat is just as inconvenient as the current system.

First Proposal

• ≥ 750 Million - 3-8 Months
• ≥ 1 billion - 8-12 Months
• ≥ 1.5 Billion 1-2 Years

Second Proposal

The timeframe will be based on user activity, e.g. posts, issues answered, card deck, registered email and not just population.

For example, a nation with 500 population, however, answered very little issues. No posts whatsoever, a non-existent deck and no registered email. should hold for about 3 or so months compared to a nation with 2 billion, answered a few hundred issues, has a substantial deck, and a few hundred unique posts, and a registered email which should grant about maybe a year or so.

Jesus christ, this is terrible. The current population rules are fine. Only a few months between founding releasing the name?..

[Marxist Germany]

I agree with Bears Armed's proposal, however I think that nations should be permanently reserved after 2 billion as that is about a year of playing.

[Aether]

That suck, i can't use the name of my "IRL roleplay nation" (from an rp with friends), because it is "Disgraced"

[Mullyland]

I wanted to make a new nation recently and the username I thought of had already been taken which was a shame at first but then I was very annoyed when I found out that the account had only been used for about a month before quitting the game and now I cannot use said username for the next 5 years because of someone who barley played the game used it once.
Basically I think that restrictions on usernames need to be lifted a little bit, I do think that nations that are already unusable due to being to large or significant should stay that way however other smaller former nations should be easier to reuse in my opinion at most a nation should be gone for at max a year before being eligible to be reused

[Riemstagrad]

As soon as names are released one day after a nation ceases to exist, players will demand that names can be taken from existing nations that didn't log in for 21 days...

[Union Soviet Socialistic Republics]

Hello, this is exactly what I wanted to know about, can I check and if possible give me the opportunity to reuse the name Republic of Belarus (https://www.nationstates.net/page=boneyard?nation=republic_of_belarus). This nation ceased to exist more than 14 years ago, and there were less than 250 million people.

[Luna Amore]

Hello, this is exactly what I wanted to know about, can I check and if possible give me the opportunity to reuse the name Republic of Belarus (https://www.nationstates.net/page=boneyard?nation=republic_of_belarus). This nation ceased to exist more than 14 years ago, and there were less than 250 million people.

Nations which were deleted for rules violations cannot be released. Sorry.

[Union Soviet Socialistic Republics]

Hello, this is exactly what I wanted to know about, can I check and if possible give me the opportunity to reuse the name Republic of Belarus (https://www.nationstates.net/page=boneyard?nation=republic_of_belarus). This nation ceased to exist more than 14 years ago, and there were less than 250 million people.

Nations which were deleted for rules violations cannot be released. Sorry.

It is extremely sad. Went to cry