NationStates

There is a nation that has always been confused and mixing between game-playing, role-playing and real life aspects continuously . After giving a lot of warnings they have been banjected . Even after that they still attack the region that banjected them with the same way of confusing and mixing between different aspects .
Are they worthy of condemnation ?

Probably not.

Nah. Yeah, they may be rather annoying, but that's not worthy of a condemnation. A condemnation is reserved for the Genghis Khans of our world, as well as embezzlers and other bad people.

The only ones who deserve condemning are those who
A. Hack
B. Harass
C. Hate
And so on.

New Excalibus wrote:The only ones who deserve condemning are those who
A. Hack
B. Harass
C. Hate
And so on.

No, the ones who hack and harass should be reported to the moderators as they're doing something very wrong. Those who hate should be argued with or ignored.

The people worth condemning are raiders and very violent/repressive rp nations, because a condemnation is IC rather than ooc. As an organisation, the WA would obviously dislike the fact that their are regions which go around invading others, but we don't hate raiders for what they do, they make the game interesting, they're normal people many of whom are decent.
Equally, the WA would hate slave-traders, hiper-aggressive empire-builders, genocidal nations. But the condemnation only says that: it doesn't say that we actually dislike the players.
We should dislike hackers because they hack nations, we should dislike harassers because they can destroy lives. A WA condemnation doesn't show that, and in fact just gives them undeserved attention.

Sword BJ wrote:There is a nation that has always been confused and mixing between game-playing, role-playing and real life aspects continuously . After giving a lot of warnings they have been banjected . Even after that they still attack the region that banjected them with the same way of confusing and mixing between different aspects .
Are they worthy of condemnation ?

Honestly they just sound like a new player, who is probably worthy of mentoring more than anything else.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Sword BJ wrote:There is a nation that has always been confused and mixing between game-playing, role-playing and real life aspects continuously . After giving a lot of warnings they have been banjected . Even after that they still attack the region that banjected them with the same way of confusing and mixing between different aspects .
Are they worthy of condemnation ?

Honestly they just sound like a new player, who is probably worthy of mentoring more than anything else.

We tried a lot , But it keeps happening .

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

New Excalibus wrote:The only ones who deserve condemning are those who
A. Hack
B. Harass
C. Hate
And so on.

No, the ones who hack and harass should be reported to the moderators as they're doing something very wrong. Those who hate should be argued with or ignored.

The people worth condemning are raiders and very violent/repressive rp nations, because a condemnation is IC rather than ooc. As an organisation, the WA would obviously dislike the fact that their are regions which go around invading others, but we don't hate raiders for what they do, they make the game interesting, they're normal people many of whom are decent.
Equally, the WA would hate slave-traders, hiper-aggressive empire-builders, genocidal nations. But the condemnation only says that: it doesn't say that we actually dislike the players.
We should dislike hackers because they hack nations, we should dislike harassers because they can destroy lives. A WA condemnation doesn't show that, and in fact just gives them undeserved attention.

Dislike is a understatement. Anyone committing gross serious offenses are blacklisted.

Yeah, you don’t condemn OOCly bad nations, because it’s just publicity. Condemnations and commendations are really two sides of the same coin- Commendations are for “good” things (defending, RPing as a benevolent nation, resolution writing usually, etc.) and condemnations are for “bad” (raiding, RPing malevolently, etc.)

What's REALLY worth condemning are those no good, dirty, egotistical Bigtopians. I tire of their constant need for being taken more seriously than my own human resources. They always clamor about their homeland which is no where in particular and yet here they are b*tching about everything and nothing at the same time. I say we put aside out differences and condemn Bigtopians. And condemn condoms while we're at it!