Dr Rush

Yes as it stands your ban is permeant and you still haven't given a reason for me to change that. In fact you are making it quite clear you do not understand the gravity of your past actions. Appeal Denied

You like everyone else agreed to follow the rules when you first joined the server. You then agreed to them again when you evaded your first ban. Those warning points on your nation do not expire for a reason, that warning is a very serious thing. There is a base level of trust given everyone when they join a community, you however have already broken that trust. As it is I can not trust you to follow the rules or show even basic respect to others. I have no path for you to rebuild that trust, so unless you can produce something beyond promises to rebuild it yourself we are done here.

Honestly if you were still banned just for your original conduct I'd give you a chance to prove two years has made a difference. But this isn't your first appeal, its your third. Your second appeal was denied for your other conduct which you can find in your nation warnings. I and the rest of staff considered your remaining banned on discord part of your punishment for that other incident. That is a much harder case for you to make, I'm gonna let you make it, but i'm fairly sure of the results.

I need your discord guid to look your history up. Directions on how to get that here: https://www.businessinsider.com/guides/tech/discord-id?op=1

Okay so peek into the backrooms here. This came up because some IA peeps think it'll help stream line a conversion point from tiny raider to functional nation if the limit is at c11 instead of c10. Me and a couple other people expressed that if we are going to fiddle with it should be moved to C15 to be aligned with the other new player stuff which is also at c15. I'm not a fan of dropping it entirely though. While in practice money is the normal limiter, the cooldown does prevent some cheesy stunt like down declaring and buying multiple cities. (This actually is still possible below C10 and happens a fair bit where someone will down sell to hit targets then rebuild cities for basically free with project benefits, needs fixed separately tbh.) Also for bank thefts it both prevents a trapped offshore dumping its money into cities and also allows the robbed some time to try to recover things.

You know whats not optional? Upvoting this post. 10/10 Would shop for options again.

Wait so you accusing people of rigging elections and betraying democracy with no provided evidence; While also declaring democracy bad and declaring yourself the lord sovereign of what you claim is the same aa? In, checks notes, a great act of restoration to the alliance.

So I do see where the disconnect here is. What is meant by short phrases is stuff like 'Sí señor' or other similar snippets. Longer snippets with translations are permitted sparingly and only to the extent they are required to the conversation. And you were over the permitted thresholds of both parts in the latter case. I am going to reduce your mute to time served, but the warning does stand.

Appeal granted. I would ask that if you going to comment like that you be more thoughtful in your criticism, but the bot skipped the part where it is supposed to warn you by double counting the same post for some reason.

The Big $pread

I'll add it to the list of changes for the bulletin update hows that?

Also specific to the double war bug. Since people seem particularly concerned about that. It's unfortunately not new either, it is however exceedingly rare and in all likely hood the same issue as whats driving the maps problem. As far as new bugs go the issue with the extra map if you attack right after dc but before maps have been given will be fixed as soon as the next patch gets pushed live that fixes snorlax and some other issues. As a follow up me and village currently suspect that some people not getting maps in a war is actually a validation script fixing the extra map in wars where the dc declare issue happened.

Alex is fully aware of how important war is and how bad the map issue is. He and 3 other devs have spent literally 100s of dev hours trying to fix it to no avail. It is unfortunately the worst type of bug to fix. It can not be reproduced on demand and only a couple of requirements for it to happen are even known. It's only on the live game and only during globals so chances to test fixes are few and far between and come with the risk of breaking the game in a critical time frame.

The irony here is alex has been increasing his time and financial investment in the game. And which old system are you suggesting we revert too? I'm not sure where I said this? I did mention in terms of mechanics the option redesigning the war system. Village and Alex are separately considering rewriting the code for the existing system entirely. And also half jokingly/ half seriously rewiting the entire game in a totally different language. See below The map tally system is basically meant as an admin tool to help sort out the actual map bugs. It is attempting to back words engineer the map history for a war separate of the actual records. It's predictive of what should be not what actually it is. It's also currently expected to be on the buggy side, it was released in an alpha state because of how severe some of the other issues where and it was needed now.

You've been unbanned. Sorry for the mixup.

No that wasn't very funny. Nor was your other 'jokes' before that which had already earned you warns. However, staff is willing to give you one more chance to be part of the community. Do be aware though that chances are a rare commodity and if you waste this one you won't get another.

As far as nominations go having them run from the start of the war until some period of time after it is over allows names from all phases to be considered. Additionally one of things that I'm allowing the committees to do is toss in last second contenders for consideration. On a sperate consideration, the current wiki rule regarding when war names get the full formal process is from pre npolt & reflects the political meta of that time. The political meta has changed rather significantly since then with having more smaller power blocs. That also means that the last several major conflicts didn't technically meet the requirement. So that raises the question of what should the bar be set at?

Who? Can confirm I know who the mods are and that is not one of them. Tbh, you should report that, mods would have a field day over their titles being used in vain.

I'm traumatized and have severe paranoia. I've removed the bot as a safety precaution until shit is sorted out. Its SoP in this kind of situation. It should not be used as evidence either way on the issue.

A great deal tbh, the entire point of alex hiring on people was to take over this process almost entirely. Also currently there are 4 places where stuff gets reported getting that condensed to 1 will greatly speed up things.

I'd like to observe that just cause you can't see them doesn't mean changes are not being made. Lately a lot of dev has been going into building out a moderation system for the mods to use. As for alliance permissions, there have been several exploits that have cropped and that causes the project to get pushed further back.

Your not saying anything I've not though about myself and this has been a topic I've been meaning to address for awhile. 1. On principle I wholly agree, actually. However, pretty much the most consistent complaint I remember getting over the years doing this is that it's too long and I should start the vote sooner. There have been a few occasions where people have sniped the nomination process and even the vote if I'm even a couple days behind or even before the war has ended. In that latter case that can be a real issue; GnR for instance was as a name in serious danger of getting blocked because of DMCA/Trademark concerns and I had to clear it with Alex. I could largely resolve this by asking the various mod teams to block those threads but that requires a community consensus first. 2. I and some mixture of a 3rd party can curate much more than just tossing names that are inappropriate if that's what the community wants. But because that is me and whoever basically stripping power from the community the community needs to give support to that before I'll do it. 3a. I do see where you coming from, but I think the community has a concern in the matter as well. At the end of the day it's not just the combatants who will need to use the name. The rest of community is stuck with it as well. That being said maybe the combatants could be given some more say somewhere perhaps as a weighted vote and/or in nominations. 3b. I also understand wanting the people voting to understand what is going on. I would proffer however the noobs are never going to know what is going on and will never become interested in figuring it out if they are not being exposed to it. At a certain point this is also an officially endorsed event and that comes with certain baggage as a turn of phrase. Because it's official it needs to also consider overall goals of Alex and staff like community growth and player engagement. Which means being open to and trying to engage everyone. There are also technical challenges to consider. Just limiting it to people who actually have accounts limits venue to 3 options; The forum, the discord, and the game itself. Of the 3 the forum has been in decline for some time, which is a reflection of the times tbh. I'm not seeing its totally dead and worthless but it is a strong consideration in both directing community traffic and also seeing participation. I gave serious thought to doing some or all of this on the discord. I didn't because it would have been a huge mess overall and the shortlisting vote would have been illegible if I was even able to set it up. That leaves the game, I agree bulletins are messy, particularly without a proper poll system being added yet. It's vastly overridden as a concern though by being accessible easily. In game there is also the option of setting up a specialized system just for this purpose. However that means alex forking out time and cash to develop it in leu of other things. So convincing him to do it is going to require not just the majority but the bulk of the active community to agree to it and then aside from maybe tweaking a few numbers or setting that is the system the community will be largely stuck with. 4. So a few issues with this. What happens if the parties don't provide a name? What if the name chosen has to be moderated? Also, it would be confusing to have names chosen in such radically different manners war to war. Also, the dev team has spent many hours trying to figure out how to make wars shorter and more frequent. Adding another reason to remain at war would work against that goal. -------------------- 5. As a proposal system to try and balance everything out. I'm of course open to alterations and such. Just seeing if this is moving in the right direction. War name nominations start at the declaration of war in a bulletin started by a staff rep. Nominations run for 72 hours or so after all parties are peaced out. Staff collects the nominations and culls anything objectionable. A selection of reps from each side, individually go through the nominations and select a specified number of them to advance. After the advancements each rep then votes them in a ranked choice vote. The top x number options from the reps ranked choice vote are offered to the community in a bulletin vote (with a proper poll system.)

10/10 design.

I added 2 days to vote because the announcement was late being posted. Will now expire on Thursday.

I probably could have condensed some of the same themes down a lot more but at same time its better to let the community select which iterations they like best to the extent possible. As it is I think 80 or so suggestions died on the cutting room floor.