NationStates

Posted: **Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:29 pm**

Great Nepal wrote:
Britcan wrote:I think posting past a ban is always ground for a DEAT.

1. Even if they didn't know the rules?
2. Again, it is a DEAT. Apart from DOS, you cant get any more serious than that.

1. I'm 99% sure that is the case
2. A DEAT due to ignorance isn't really that bad IMO

Posted: **Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:30 pm**

Bodobol wrote:
The Republic of Llamas wrote:add .5 to Yanalia's vote count, rather than 1. There. Everyone's all happy.

Oh wait, that would work. Never mind.

No it wouldn't. The case needs to be decided without any 0.5 votes nonsense, regardless of what the decision is. That 0.5 vote will still take one vote to beat since no one else has half votes.

Posted: **Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:30 pm**

Britcan wrote:
Great Nepal wrote:1. Even if they didn't know the rules?
2. Again, it is a DEAT. Apart from DOS, you cant get any more serious than that.

1. I'm 99% sure that is the case
2. A DEAT due to ignorance isn't really that bad IMO

2. A DEAT for any reason is bad. It is the very limit of badness that allows you to be in the thread.

Posted: **Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:32 pm**

Great Nepal wrote:
Ainin wrote:He had a single disciplinary action on his record, and was DEATed for posting past ban.
Total: 2

DEAT is the most serious from of ban that would allow that person to be on forums, however.

His vote should not count. He's not 30 days old.

Posted: **Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:32 pm**

The Republic of Llamas wrote:
Bodobol wrote:
He made two mistakes; he mistook TET for a spam thread, which got him a 24 hour forumban. Then, not knowing that it was against the rules, he used a puppet in TET to ask why he was forumbanned, which caused his nation to get deleted (and the puppet, of course).

Can you please link us to where he broke the rules, so that people can see?

Here ya go.

He did not receive a warning prior to his forumban.

Posted: **Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:33 pm**

The problem is that the rules we have made and just full of loopholes. We never specified how many bans or what kinds of bans (what they were banned for). If we are doing a rule change more detail to make this all clearer would be excellent, so people cannot take advantage of loopholes.

Posted: **Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:34 pm**

We still haven't allowed someone with no record, been on NS longer than a month but not the forums yet we allow someone who has been banned and forum deleted.

Good move

Posted: **Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:34 pm**

Battlion wrote:We still haven't allowed someone with no record, been on NS longer than a month but not the forums yet we allow someone who has been banned and forum deleted.

Good move

Who is the person with no record?

Posted: **Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:35 pm**

Jetan wrote:
Bodobol wrote:
Oh wait, that would work. Never mind.

No it wouldn't. The case needs to be decided without any 0.5 votes nonsense, regardless of what the decision is. That 0.5 vote will still take one vote to beat since no one else has half votes.

It was a joke. O.o Someone took it seriously? That means that this is heating up faster than most abortion arguments. Pretty soon, we'll be using our IC militaries to influence the elections in Aurentina. :lol2:

Stop being so serious about a fake election for a fake country, guys.

Posted: **Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:36 pm**

Battlion wrote:We still haven't allowed someone with no record, been on NS longer than a month but not the forums yet we allow someone who has been banned and forum deleted.

Good move

Ikania did not disclose his ban history on other nations when accepted.

As I have recused myself from this situation, I will not make a final judgement, but I'd like to suggest that other admins take that into consideration.

Posted: **Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:37 pm**

The Republic of Llamas wrote:
Jetan wrote:No it wouldn't. The case needs to be decided without any 0.5 votes nonsense, regardless of what the decision is. That 0.5 vote will still take one vote to beat since no one else has half votes.

It was a joke. O.o Someone took it seriously? That means that this is heating up faster than most abortion arguments. Pretty soon, we'll be using our IC militaries to influence the elections in Aurentina. Stop being so serious about a fake election for a fake country, guys.

It was a bad joke then.

Posted: **Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:38 pm**

Maklohi Vai wrote:
Battlion wrote:We still haven't allowed someone with no record, been on NS longer than a month but not the forums yet we allow someone who has been banned and forum deleted.

Good move

Ikania did not disclose his ban history on other nations when accepted.

As I have recused myself from this situation, I will not make a final judgement, but I'd like to suggest that other admins take that into consideration.

Horsecrap (sorry), I told you everything!

Posted: **Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:38 pm**

Maklohi Vai wrote:
Bleckonia wrote:The actions taken by maklohi vai are absolutely disgusting. Overriding set rules to get votes for someone is ludicrous. If that vote is not rendered null, I WILL resign. I cannot participate in an RP where people like mv think they can override set rules.

It seems, senator, that you are not a trusting person. There are several things that point to Ikania being fine and as such would not override any rules, but I suppose you do have a point here. I still maintain that he should be allowed, but at this point:

I am removing myself from an administration capacity on the Ikania issue. Other admins will decide.

OOC: This was actually really offensive to me. I did what I thought was fair and best, and now I'm getting a ton of shit for it. I would have thought you guys were a little more understa
nding.

I'm trusting but not naive. He is not 30 days old, and if you can't understand that rule, you shouldn't be an admin. But I withdraw my comment about vote bias.

Posted: **Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:38 pm**

Jetan wrote:
The Republic of Llamas wrote:It was a joke. O.o Someone took it seriously? That means that this is heating up faster than most abortion arguments. Pretty soon, we'll be using our IC militaries to influence the elections in Aurentina. Stop being so serious about a fake election for a fake country, guys.

It was a bad joke then.

I make a lot of those.

Ugh, someone get an admin. I'm leaving this conversation. Ikania, just wait two weeks. At least it's just one vote.

Posted: **Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:39 pm**

Ikania wrote:
Maklohi Vai wrote:Ikania did not disclose his ban history on other nations when accepted.

As I have recused myself from this situation, I will not make a final judgement, but I'd like to suggest that other admins take that into consideration.

Horsecrap (sorry), I told you everything!

No, you said that you had no bans on this nation. You did not disclose your bans on Mojave.

Posted: **Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:40 pm**

Ikania wrote:
Maklohi Vai wrote:Ikania did not disclose his ban history on other nations when accepted.

As I have recused myself from this situation, I will not make a final judgement, but I'd like to suggest that other admins take that into consideration.

Horsecrap (sorry), I told you everything!

So, now you are claiming an admin is lying?

I vote that Ikania not be allowed to vote and acceptance nullified on grounds of excessive ban (DEAT) and non-disclosure regarding it.

Posted: **Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:40 pm**

Okay, first off, I wanna know what counts as an 'excessive ban history'. Is a deletion considered excessive? One, single deletion? I bet there are people in the NSG senate who have been banned multiple times.

Posted: **Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:41 pm**

Great Nepal wrote:
Ikania wrote:Horsecrap (sorry), I told you everything!

So, now you are claiming an admin is lying?

I vote that Ikania not be allowed to vote and acceptance nullified on grounds of excessive ban (DEAT) and non-disclosure regarding it.

Let's just wait the two weeks until he's a month old and then let him join. The end. This argument annoys me. I'm leaving.

Posted: **Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:41 pm**

Great Nepal wrote:
Ikania wrote:Horsecrap (sorry), I told you everything!

So, now you are claiming an admin is lying?

I vote that Ikania not be allowed to vote and acceptance nullified on grounds of excessive ban (DEAT) and non-disclosure regarding it.

Seconded

Posted: **Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:41 pm**

Great Nepal wrote:
Ikania wrote:Horsecrap (sorry), I told you everything!

So, now you are claiming an admin is lying?

I vote that Ikania not be allowed to vote and acceptance nullified on grounds of excessive ban (DEAT) and non-disclosure regarding it.

I still don't think that a forumban and then a DEAT without warning counts as excessive ban.

Although you are correct about the non-disclosure.

Posted: **Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:41 pm**

Ikania wrote:Okay, first off, I wanna know what counts as an 'excessive ban history'. Is a deletion considered excessive? One, single deletion? I bet there are people in the NSG senate who have been banned multiple times.

There's no rigid definition.

Posted: **Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:42 pm**

Bodobol wrote:
Ikania wrote:Horsecrap (sorry), I told you everything!

No, you said that you had no bans on this nation. You did not disclose your bans on Mojave.

I most certainly did. I said, quote;

My old nation was Mojave. It got deleted only a few days ago. Erm, I was kind of... spamming. I didn't know I was spamming until I got forumbanned, and then I accidentally tripped another rule by using a puppet to tell everyone what happened. So, Mojave's gone, due to a series of stupid blunders I should have been smart enough to see coming. I really want to get accepted, please understand that I didn't mean for it all to happen.

Posted: **Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:42 pm**

The Republic of Llamas wrote:
Ikania wrote:Okay, first off, I wanna know what counts as an 'excessive ban history'. Is a deletion considered excessive? One, single deletion? I bet there are people in the NSG senate who have been banned multiple times.

There's no rigid definition.

Which creates loopholes. Loopholes that can be taken advantage of.

Posted: **Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:43 pm**

Ikania wrote:
Bodobol wrote:
No, you said that you had no bans on this nation. You did not disclose your bans on Mojave.

I most certainly did. I said, quote;
My old nation was Mojave. It got deleted only a few days ago. Erm, I was kind of... spamming. I didn't know I was spamming until I got forumbanned, and then I accidentally tripped another rule by using a puppet to tell everyone what happened. So, Mojave's gone, due to a series of stupid blunders I should have been smart enough to see coming. I really want to get accepted, please understand that I didn't mean for it all to happen.

Can you re-quote yourself with a link to absolutely verify this?

Posted: **Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:43 pm**

Ikania wrote:
Bodobol wrote:
No, you said that you had no bans on this nation. You did not disclose your bans on Mojave.

I most certainly did. I said, quote;
My old nation was Mojave. It got deleted only a few days ago. Erm, I was kind of... spamming. I didn't know I was spamming until I got forumbanned, and then I accidentally tripped another rule by using a puppet to tell everyone what happened. So, Mojave's gone, due to a series of stupid blunders I should have been smart enough to see coming. I really want to get accepted, please understand that I didn't mean for it all to happen.

Ah, you TG'd it.

You did disclose your ban history. Never mind what I said.

NationStates

NSG Senate Lobby: Up for a game of pool? [NSG Senate]