by Mossex » Mon Dec 30, 2024 6:32 pm
by Fahran » Mon Dec 30, 2024 9:53 pm
by Of The Revived Soviet Union » Mon Dec 30, 2024 9:55 pm
Fahran wrote:I do not see why it would be prohibited since it doesn't violate any rules. It strikes me as a collaborative writing/role-playing/world-building project if anything and could be a worthwhile way of getting people to engage with NS. My one bit of advice would be to focus your posts on the Factbooks and National Information and NationStates sub-forums since those feel a bit more intuitive to what you're proposing than F7, at least if you're planning to commit to the concept.
by Past beans » Mon Dec 30, 2024 11:16 pm
Of The Revived Soviet Union wrote:Fahran wrote:I do not see why it would be prohibited since it doesn't violate any rules. It strikes me as a collaborative writing/role-playing/world-building project if anything and could be a worthwhile way of getting people to engage with NS. My one bit of advice would be to focus your posts on the Factbooks and National Information and NationStates sub-forums since those feel a bit more intuitive to what you're proposing than F7, at least if you're planning to commit to the concept.
Well, another question.
If the OP is a WA member and we request the alt joins the WA, would that make the new, WA alt, eligible to removal?
by Fahran » Tue Dec 31, 2024 12:33 am
Past beans wrote:I’m not a mod, but yeah, it probably would. Operating more than one WA account is disallowed. OP would need to resign whatever nation is their WA nation before applying the alt to it.
by Mossex » Tue Dec 31, 2024 6:22 am
by Of The Revived Soviet Union » Sun Jan 12, 2025 6:53 pm
Fahran wrote:Past beans wrote:I’m not a mod, but yeah, it probably would. Operating more than one WA account is disallowed. OP would need to resign whatever nation is their WA nation before applying the alt to it.
This is correct. The puppet, in this particular case, has a single player behind it, even if that player is consulting and collaborating with other players. The role against multiple WA nations remains in effect and would be applicable here. So do not violate it.
Going further, even if a nation had several players behind it, we would not allow a work-around for the rule against multiple WA nations since this would create an obvious incentive to try to leverage that for outsized influence in the WA and SC. I won't speak on a hypothetical in too much detail, but we would almost certainly remove WA privileges from at least one person involved in such a scheme.
So there ain't a work-around and please do not work to find one.
by Euroslavia » Sun Jan 12, 2025 9:10 pm
Of The Revived Soviet Union wrote:Fahran wrote:This is correct. The puppet, in this particular case, has a single player behind it, even if that player is consulting and collaborating with other players. The role against multiple WA nations remains in effect and would be applicable here. So do not violate it.
Going further, even if a nation had several players behind it, we would not allow a work-around for the rule against multiple WA nations since this would create an obvious incentive to try to leverage that for outsized influence in the WA and SC. I won't speak on a hypothetical in too much detail, but we would almost certainly remove WA privileges from at least one person involved in such a scheme.
So there ain't a work-around and please do not work to find one.
Bit of a gravedig, but I was thinking...
If I decided to resign from the WA on this nation, then make a jointly-controlled nation I primarily owned, then wouldn't it technically not break WA rules because there wouldn't be more than 1 WA account per person due to my non-membership of the WA if I did that?
This is a hypothetical, for reference. I don't plan on doing this for a while.
by Of The Revived Soviet Union » Sun Jan 12, 2025 9:14 pm
Euroslavia wrote:Of The Revived Soviet Union wrote:Bit of a gravedig, but I was thinking...
If I decided to resign from the WA on this nation, then make a jointly-controlled nation I primarily owned, then wouldn't it technically not break WA rules because there wouldn't be more than 1 WA account per person due to my non-membership of the WA if I did that?
This is a hypothetical, for reference. I don't plan on doing this for a while.
I may not be a moderator currently, but I can answer this one. Hypotheticals are something the moderators don't make a habit of ruling on, as Fahran pointed out in their last post here. One WA nation per person. Sharing a WA nation with someone else is putting yourself at a greater risk, because you can't control what the other person may decide to do. The more information given out for technicalities, the more likely one can rules lawyer their way around.
by La Xinga » Sun Jan 12, 2025 9:15 pm
Of The Revived Soviet Union wrote:Euroslavia wrote:
I may not be a moderator currently, but I can answer this one. Hypotheticals are something the moderators don't make a habit of ruling on, as Fahran pointed out in their last post here. One WA nation per person. Sharing a WA nation with someone else is putting yourself at a greater risk, because you can't control what the other person may decide to do. The more information given out for technicalities, the more likely one can rules lawyer their way around.
Ok.
And why don't you have any cards? No S2, S3, or S4. And you weren't re-founded or anything recently.
by Of The Revived Soviet Union » Sun Jan 12, 2025 9:17 pm
by Goobergunchia » Sun Jan 12, 2025 9:25 pm
Advertisement
Advertisement