I think the situation is no longer about England; it¡¯s about the fairness of the whole game. We all hope we are playing a fair game and have fun.
These are the truths we can¡¯t deny:
1,England did not appoint any new chancellors at that time. (Nations History proves that.)
2.The only three knights in England have the rights to make all these changes at that time are Elizabeth de Loraine, James, and Bella. (From the designing of the game, I think the admin should agree with that.)
3. Elizabeth de Loraine's last visit: 2012-01-11 12 o'clock (Nations History proves that.) It¡¯s impossible for her to make the changes.
Bella's last visit: 2012-01-12 05 o'clock (Nations History proves that.) It¡¯s also impossible for her to make the changes.
4 James already left the nation before everything happened. And I don¡¯t think someone in the game would stupid enough to abandon all his properties and sell out all his equipments which worth 3000 silvercoins and after that ask for all of these to be returned.

Conclusion:
It was caused by an action that is wholly outside the game and probably illegal and involved by people with no real interest in playing the game.
So what happed in England should be consider unfair to them.

And I think the admin have the duty to keep the fairness of the game or at least make England get back what they lost at the unfair situation. And I think It¡¯s not so difficult for them to do that.
Here is the petition:
Receive back the money that was given away during the time without shires and the cost of the upgrades. It includes
1.Their national treasury, they lost 2000 silvercoins .I think their treasury is almost empty.
QUOTE:
Historiography of the Nation "England"
500 silvercoins delivered to army Money of the nation England
500 silvercoins delivered to army Money of the nation England
500 silvercoins delivered to army Money of the nation England
500 silvercoins delivered to army Money of the nation England
New army Money was formed at field 36.

2.All shires were developed with roads, farming and animal husbandry. Which is 450 silvercoins per shire. Some coastal shires had harbours, somewhere between 3 and 5 of our shires had harbours, development costs 150 silvers per port. About 40 % of their shires had militia and extended militia, development costs 550 silvers per shire with both. If it is too much, the admin can return the money for the upgrades, then they can build the upgrades back by themselves in 1-2 weeks.

I think the admin at least should give 2000 silvercoins from their treasury back.

I continue to believe England should be restored to the maximum extent possible.

However, Jessica (Alrik) is a Tech mod and is more or less certain that the nation history does not indicate what is being asserted. In particular, whilst most things are written into the nation history at the time they are done, shire abandonment is written at the time it occurs (i.e at the next scoring).

Therefore, the following sequence is probably what happened:
1. The account of James (having been co-opted by someone else) is used to abandon the shires
2. The account of James (having been co-opted by someone else) is used to cause the character James to leave England, writing this to the history
3. The scoring occurs, writing the shire abandonment to the history

This can occur even if only the account of James is compromised, not the whole of the nation England.

Hoern's points appear to be:
1. No-one has provided any evidence that the whole nation of England was compromised, and the whole affair is explained by (only) the account of James being compromised. I.e. someone somehow found out James's password.
2. A single player account being compromised warrants only the response the occurred with Spain (as has been done) and not a more generous response.

Now, it happens that I disagree with Hoern's decision regarding part 2 in that I think that even with only a single account being compromised should result in a more generous restoration. I get the distinct impression that several others share my view. However, unlike us, Hoern actually has to do the work, and he would have to consider the possibility of establishing a precedent such that others in future claim "my account was compromised! it wasn't me who did that" even in cases where it isn't true. So in that sense Hoern's position can be seen as harsh but reasoned and realistic. In any event he is in charge.

Smelgar wrote:

QUOTE:
I continue to believe England should be restored to the maximum extent possible.

I concur.

I support this petition with all my heart

OK - then what will certainly be needed is a process for deciding whether someone claiming that their account was hacked is telling the truth (and hence that their account should be restored).

It seems fairly obvious that Greg/James is telling the truth, but how is the decision made, particularly in case where it is not obvious?

There will also need to be other factors considered. For example I suspect that there should be a time limit (perhaps 48 hours) for such claims to be made, and perhaps other regulations.

I guess the Council would be the adjudicator? And then council members with a conflict would need to recuse themselves..

Smelgar wrote:

QUOTE:
OK - then what will certainly be needed is a process for deciding whether someone claiming that their account was hacked is telling the truth (and hence that their account should be restored).

It seems fairly obvious that Greg/James is telling the truth, but how is the decision made, particularly in case where it is not obvious?

There will also need to be other factors considered. For example I suspect that there should be a time limit (perhaps 48 hours) for such claims to be made, and perhaps other regulations.

I guess the Council would be the adjudicator? And then council members with a conflict would need to recuse themselves..

I don't think the whys and hows really matter, if the end result is that by some kind of internal trouble (or hacking) a whole nation lost all of it's assets.

I don't think things like that happening by internal troubles (or hacking) is one of the goals of the game. The normal process for a wargame would seem warfare, battles with other nations and invading armies, which gives each nation attacked the chance to defend itsself, to call upon it's allies, to become active in RP and searching for a solution in diplomacy.

There is no defense for a nation against misuse, whether through hacking or otherwise, of the abandoning shires function or throwing away of the national treasury.

I think some kind of restoration should be made in all such cases, until Hoern can program that block of giving up no more than 2 shires per scoring.

If you think this could be open to misuse, merely restoring a percentage of the losses of the nation, instead of all losses, could be discussed.

I don't think there's any need to establish certain procedures because more procedures would only complicate the decision-making process. If there will be something that the CoK will have to vote than it will, or at least some of its members will. In the end it's not even up to the CoK to decide, it's up to Hoern. If he doesn't want to do something than he won't, regardless of what the CoK will do.

Alar I wrote:

QUOTE:
Smelgar wrote:

QUOTE:
I continue to believe England should be restored to the maximum extent possible.

I concur.

Me too

Maybe its not just about England...
It seem like a threat to the game if its happen before and years of work are destroyed who's next?
On the other hand who really knows what happen, but if RL Nations can be hacked...

It's sad that Black Raven and other players from France don't know a thing about fairness!!

While we experience hard times to recover from initial moment of hacking having a negative income (the armies costs money even after it was disbanded), they decide to take advantage in sneak attacking us.

Knights who get back their fiefdoms after days have lost it again.
Instead investing the few money that we make in rebuilding the infrastructure utterly destroyed by dropping all the shires, we need to spend on moving the armies.