[Q] Posting for a Banned Player

[Britanania]

I was having a discussion with some friends and the topic of posting for a banned player came up. I have seen on other RPs I've been involved with in the past where if players can't post for various reasons, such as illness or forum banned, that other players mod the characters for them. I thought this was all kosher, but is there a difference between posting as/for a banned player and just simply modding the characters?

[Frisbeeteria]

Posting on behalf of a banned player is considered identical to posting-past-ban. Both the banned nation and the one who posts on their behalf are deleted.

I'm not sure what "modding the characters" means in this context, but it sounds like you are making the decisions for another player. That's godmodding. It's not strictly speaking against the rules, but players who do that are generally not welcome in other people's RPs. It's certainly frowned upon.

If they are sick or their computer is broken or something that has nothing to do with NS rules and moderation, then posting on their behalf is fine.

[Britanania]

Posting on behalf of a banned player is considered identical to posting-past-ban. Both the banned nation and the one who posts on their behalf are deleted.

I'm not sure what "modding the characters" means in this context, but it sounds like you are making the decisions for another player. That's godmodding. It's not strictly speaking against the rules, but players who do that are generally not welcome in other people's RPs. It's certainly frowned upon.

If they are sick or their computer is broken or something that has nothing to do with NS rules and moderation, then posting on their behalf is fine.

Gotcha, makes sense to me. Thanks!

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Posting on behalf of a banned player is considered identical to posting-past-ban. Both the banned nation and the one who posts on their behalf are deleted.

I'm not sure what "modding the characters" means in this context, but it sounds like you are making the decisions for another player. That's godmodding. It's not strictly speaking against the rules, but players who do that are generally not welcome in other people's RPs. It's certainly frowned upon.

If they are sick or their computer is broken or something that has nothing to do with NS rules and moderation, then posting on their behalf is fine.

Hi

You might consider an edit to the osrs. The section on posting past ban, from what I see, only shows info about posting with a puppet rather than getting a nation to post for you.

[Frisbeeteria]

that nation's player is not permitted to post on the forums with other puppet nations until the forumban expires.

We've always considered "other puppet nations" to include other players posting on their behalf. You don't have to "own" a nation for it to be acting as a puppet on your behalf.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

that nation's player is not permitted to post on the forums with other puppet nations until the forumban expires.

We've always considered "other puppet nations" to include other players posting on their behalf. You don't have to "own" a nation for it to be acting as a puppet on your behalf.

I've never heard this stated though. Clarifying this point on the OSRS would help and certainly not hurt.

[Frisbeeteria]

It's not something that comes up every day. It probably only comes up once or twice a year. I'm not seeing a demonstrated need here.

If we added rules every time someone asked for a clarification, we'd have a 120 page ruleset that no one would ever read. So no, we're not adding it.

[Gigaverse]

Posting for a banned individual is not kosher, but inheriting characters and picking up plots are, yes?

[Frisbeeteria]

inheriting characters and picking up plots are, yes?

a) you need to define your terms
b) we don't issue rules on hypothetical situations. Give an example.

[Britanania]

inheriting characters and picking up plots are, yes?

a) you need to define your terms
b) we don't issue rules on hypothetical situations. Give an example.

I think he means if a player leaves a RP and another player takes his character to continue the plot.

[MERIZoC]

It's not something that comes up every day. It probably only comes up once or twice a year. I'm not seeing a demonstrated need here.

If we added rules every time someone asked for a clarification, we'd have a 120 page ruleset that no one would ever read. So no, we're not adding it.

Then have the basic rules and an extended rules. Otherwise people aren't gonna know what the rules are. Simple as that, and it's baffling why there's hardly anything set down.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

It's not something that comes up every day. It probably only comes up once or twice a year. I'm not seeing a demonstrated need here.

If we added rules every time someone asked for a clarification, we'd have a 120 page ruleset that no one would ever read. So no, we're not adding it.

Then have the basic rules and an extended rules. Otherwise people aren't gonna know what the rules are. Simple as that, and it's baffling why there's hardly anything set down.

Exactly. A puppet, in my view, is a nation directly controlled by the same player. If I posted for a banned individual, as the rule looks right now, I don't see why I'd be penalised because I'm pretty sure I don't meet the generally accepted definition of a puppet of someone who isn't me.

[Enfaru]

Gotta agree with these good folks. This is a very important topic for the role-playing community and given how players get DOSd not too infrequently, getting banned because you picked up a DOS'd players character to continue a story is not a nice way to go.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's not something that comes up every day. It probably only comes up once or twice a year. I'm not seeing a demonstrated need here.

If we added rules every time someone asked for a clarification, we'd have a 120 page ruleset that no one would ever read. So no, we're not adding it.

Then have the basic rules and an extended rules. Otherwise people aren't gonna know what the rules are. Simple as that, and it's baffling why there's hardly anything set down.

This. If the rules aren't posted and clear, then surely ignorance of the rules would be a legitimate defense against moderator action.

[United Muscovite Nations]

inheriting characters and picking up plots are, yes?

a) you need to define your terms
b) we don't issue rules on hypothetical situations. Give an example.

You just issued a ruling on a hypothetical situation. The entire concept of establishing rules is ruling on hypothetical situations.

Moreover, there are real issues that are hypothetical. For example, if a DOS player sends me a news article off-site about an event, and I decide it's newsworthy, so I post the news article to start a thread, is that posting for a banned player? If I post an article in a newspaper that's written by a banned player, is that posting for a banned player?

[Kyrusia]

a) you need to define your terms
b) we don't issue rules on hypothetical situations. Give an example.

I think he means if a player leaves a RP and another player takes his character to continue the plot.

Without their explicit permission, this is already prohibited. Check the section under "Copyright." Always has been the case, but we do not make a habit of trawling for "someone using someone else's character without their permission"; if we did, we'd be doing nothing else. We rely on player reports - namely reports from the owner of the intellectual property (character) in question.

It's not something that comes up every day. It probably only comes up once or twice a year. I'm not seeing a demonstrated need here.

If we added rules every time someone asked for a clarification, we'd have a 120 page ruleset that no one would ever read. So no, we're not adding it.

Then have the basic rules and an extended rules. Otherwise people aren't gonna know what the rules are. Simple as that, and it's baffling why there's hardly anything set down.

We do have basic rules that have been expanded into the OSRS, and continue to be expanded when required. Where are these basic rules? In the Terms and Conditions of Use (and FAQ) that everyone agrees to adhere to upon nation creation.

Gotta agree with these good folks. This is a very important topic for the role-playing community and given how players get DOSd not too infrequently, getting banned because you picked up a DOS'd players character to continue a story is not a nice way to go.

I find it absurdly unlikely using a character named "Gary" that had glasses and a swagger when a DOS used a character named "Gary" and wore sunglasses and had an odd gait would ever result in the former player being declared DOS. Simple way to avoid the problem entirely, though: adhere to the rules regarding copyright. Do what roleplayers for years have done in these instances: replace the impacted characters/nation with fillers that do not rely on the player in question, do not violate their intellectual property, and apply retcon as needed. (Roleplayers don't like doing this, which I understand, as retcon is never the ideal choice, but it has its uses - such as in instances as this.)

a) you need to define your terms
b) we don't issue rules on hypothetical situations. Give an example.

You just issued a ruling on a hypothetical situation. The entire concept of establishing rules is ruling on hypothetical situations.

Moreover, there are real issues that are hypothetical. For example, if a DOS player sends me a news article off-site about an event, and I decide it's newsworthy, so I post the news article to start a thread, is that posting for a banned player? If I post an article in a newspaper that's written by a banned player, is that posting for a banned player?

Unless you are posting on their behalf or it appears that you are participating on NationStates in a manner which allows them to continue to participate on-site by-proxy, linking to a random news article is unlikely to ever be an issue. The latter example, while exact context would determine it, is best avoided; they were banned (or DOS'd), meaning they are no longer welcome to participate on the site venue for the duration of their ban (or ever and at all, if DOS'd). Posting a news article they wrote here - again, depending on the exact details of the occurrence - may readily constitute acting as their proxy and permitting them to participate on NationStates when they shouldn't be.


All this being said: it is a logical conclusion that being a proxy to allow another player to post past ban counts, in turn, as posting past ban. Don't be another player's "puppet" by being their proxy when they are banned; they can participate again when they're no longer banned. If that disrupts the flow of a roleplay or a thread, my sincere apologies, but there is no one to blame for that spare the player that violated the rules to earn the ban to begin with. A polite discussion with them about their responsibilities to adhere to the rules and how the failure to do so can adversely impact their friends and roleplay partners would not be untoward.

[MERIZoC]

Then have the basic rules and an extended rules. Otherwise people aren't gonna know what the rules are. Simple as that, and it's baffling why there's hardly anything set down.

We do have basic rules that have been expanded into the OSRS, and continue to be expanded when required. Where are these basic rules? In the Terms and Conditions of Use (and FAQ) that everyone agrees to adhere to upon nation creation.

I....what? Fris literally just said "If we added rules every time someone asked for a clarification, we'd have a 120 page ruleset that no one would ever read. So no, we're not adding it," in response to the suggestion that the rules be updated in the OSRS. I know for a fact that they are not, since I've been booked for breaking rules that don't appear there.

[Kyrusia]

I....what? Fris literally just said "If we added rules every time someone asked for a clarification, we'd have a 120 page ruleset that no one would ever read. So no, we're not adding it," in response to the suggestion that the rules be updated in the OSRS. I know for a fact that they are not, since I've been booked for breaking rules that don't appear there.

We do have basic rules that have been expanded into the OSRS, and continue to be expanded when required. Where are these basic rules? In the Terms and Conditions of Use (and FAQ) that everyone agrees to adhere to upon nation creation.

Emphasis added. Not every potential variant violation of an extant rule is going to be explicitly written in the OSRS, nor does every potential "clarification" need be added. In this case: posting on the behalf of a banned player is obviously allowing the banned player to evade their ban. I concur with Fris: this clarification to the rules is not required. It's a logical conclusion of long-standing, long-enforced policy.

When it is determined a change or addition is needed, we make them, as you can see by the change log in the OSRS itself.

At the end of the day, our rules are very simple, and you agree to them upon nation creation. As it states in the rules, "Collected here for your amusement and amazement are summaries of most* of the rules and conditions of NationStates, as set by Max Barry, and site Administrators, [violet], and SalusaSecondus, with precedents from Moderators past, present, and future. The core precepts for all rules in both game and forums can be found in the NationStates Terms of Service (TOS) (http://www.nationstates.net/pages/legal.html) and Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) (http://www.nationstates.net/page=faq)." Further:

BY USING THIS SITE, YOU SIGNIFY YOUR ACCEPTANCE TO THESE TERMS OF USE. If you do not agree to these terms and conditions, do not use this site.

You may submit content to NationStates.net so long as it is not obscene, illegal, threatening, malicious, or defamatory, does not invade the privacy or infringe the intellectual property of a third party, and does not constitute "spam." You may not use a false e-mail address, impersonate any person or entity, attempt to "hack" the site or another player's account, nor otherwise mislead as to the origin of information.

You agree to abide by all posted site rules, a fuller accounting of which may be found in the FAQ and The One Stop Rules Shop forum thread.

[...]

By entering the NationStates forum you assert that you are at least 13 years of age.

The OSRS contains the "extended rules," essentially, to use your terminology.


*Most, as some boards - such as NS Sports - have further rules due to their special nature.

[Enfaru]

Much appreciated thanks for the clarification Kyrusia and Frisbeeteria.