A Pax Cynica Case in Point: Inactive Parties

Threads from before the Dec 15, 2023 migration.

A Pax Cynica Case in Point: Inactive Parties

Postby IdioC » Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:58 pm

Seeing as a thread on this was not (to my knowledge) created in the end, following on from the discussion that has been going on in the Multi Inquisition thread, I feel I should explain a bit of the background of the existing rules here.

Firstly, the parts I'm referring to:

Pax Cynica wrote:2.3.1 Multiple accounts are defined as two or more accounts determined to be used by the same player, irrespective of which nations the parties attached to them are located in, where both are actively affecting the laws of the nation/nations involved.

2.3.2 Multiple accounts are prohibited in The Game as they can be exploited for cheating.

2.3.2.1 An inactive account proposing bills in a nation other than speeches is actively affecting the laws of the nation/nations involved and will count as one of set of multiple accounts, grounds for inactivating the active account in this case.

2.3.2.2 An inactive account proposing resolutions within a nation under the guise of a party or group, banned from or not running for the government of the nation, for the sake of roleplay, with prior agreement within the nation, with no second active account is acceptable.

2.3.3 Multiple accounts will be both inactivated on sight and without warning. The game engine has several means for finding multiple accounts.
...
2.4.5 The first account may continue to be logged into to remain in touch OOC with players in the first nation except if Rule 2.3.2.1 is violated.


So, what're the backgrounds of these?

Many players over time have either grown tired of their first nation or seek a new RP environment, but wish to remain in contact with the players in their original nation. In some cases, this may include viewpoints on previous RP ideas in the original nation, contributions to flags and clarification of historical events involving characters belonging the inactivated party. As such, the contingency in 2.4.5 was added in order to allow people to contribute to the community in their old nation in an advisory role (or purely communicate Out of Character) whilst playing in their newly chosen nation, provided that they weren't seeking control in both nations at once, as in 2.3.2.1.

It is with a heavy heart that I have to admit that the precedent in 2.3.2.1 was set by my own misdemeanours. I proposed a bill with articles in Pontesi as the CBP, then inactive, and sent it to vote whilst playing in Beiteynu during the Gran Tadraki conflict RP (in game nation terms, a partial invasion intent on two regions), in order to work against someone who had moved from Beiteynu to Pontesi to try and usurp the country. Several players at the time had an OOC discussion and I agreed that in retrospect I shouldn't have done this. The action was later - on consultation with my co-mods at the time leaving the judgement to them for the sake of neutrality - deemed unfair on principle as I was actively affecting the game engine in both nations at once. I had often communicated back to my compatriots in Pontesi while inactive as the CBP, but the bill in question was deemed quite rightly to have crossed the line.

Another issue that has arisen with Inactive Parties are when parties are created in other nations and then immediately inactivated for the purposes of spying on other nations. If found, these are strongly discouraged. However, most are covered under multi-ing policy as the original party is rarely inactivated (people don't want to lose seats for spies after all) and may be traced to the originating party. Both must have been active at the same time at some point and may be dealt with under Multi regulations.

----

And now for the current scenario:

Jessaveryja wrote:I have one for each nation and an extra in Talmoria and I logged in so they could join the Terran Union for Schultzism. If inactives weren't allowed, several people would be in trouble.


This is true. The five parties in question - http://classic.particracy.net/viewparty ... tyid=10906, 11372, 11452, 11474 and 11595 - have been suitably used in play as far as I can determine. A sixth - 11708 - appears to have been made also. In not interfering with the politics of a nation itself, this is not prohibited under Pax Cynica (at least in its current form).

Darvian wrote:Really? This seems like a clear abuse of the rules. Sure, it's a loop-hole and you've exploited it and admitted to it. I'm not asking for moderator intervention as it appears what you've done although clearly rather well-I don't agree with it, is within the framework of the rules. My question though in this situation and it may not be pertinent here but, as Jessaveryja has deemed it an appropriate enough question given his statements. As we know one party can create one organization. If I were to go inactive, make 30 other parties in other nations to use them to create player-orgs without using up my slot on my main account when I returned to it; this is above board as well I would presume?


This is a precedent that has not been set before, as party organisations are essentially nothing but discussion threads, without any ability to endorse a candidate or throw their weight behind a political motion. It isn't multi-ing, but if a large amount of organisations are made with no real purpose, it could come under spam regulations.

Cold wrote:We don't simply create accounts with no purpose other than to create and populate orgs.


Never known a case of someone doing so in my time in the game. Inactive accounts don't keep an organisation active if it's put up for Arbitration anyway, so there is literally no benefit to doing this anyway!

Darvian wrote:That's fine, I didn't say either of you did. As Mr. Yankee's picked up on, my point is the potential for abuse of this. I think it's a rather valid point given now two people have confessed to using multiple accounts for political purposes; again within the rules apparently and my opinion of this isn't really important to the issue I've brought up. How could it be abused well, I'll let your imaginations run wild. I know personally I could use a few organizations with credible purposes. With the constant updates from Jacobin and others with leaderless organizations the question shifts slightly to this process adding to the moderators duties. We're already short-staffed and our moderators do one hell of a job given what they've got on their plate. I'm not trying to single anyone out at all. I'm simply curious on the point I raised. It would seem that if creating an infinite amount of parties for 'political purposes' is within reason I can't see honestly why it wouldn't be within reason to use this for 'organizational purposes' versus 'political purposes.' I hope this distills my question a bit more.


The reason for the limit is to stop people making shedloads of junk organisations Moderation has to remove. The idea is to make people think, "Is this organisation worth making?" rather than "I'll make ten and ignore the nine that don't take hold". There's little to fear through any potential exploits though of the facility as far as players are concerned.

Well, I hope that's helped clear out a few things. Feel free to ask further questions on past precedents, but as for any further policy decisions besides the spam notion I suggested earlier: that's not my place anymore and I'm sure if anything changes, we'll all be kept in the loop. :)
What is that weird Jelbék language what I types with me computer buttons?

"Kae orzy sedrijohylakmek, megàmojylakjek, frjomimek. Kaerjoshu zri? Afrkmojad firja, Kae grzy Zykhiko ajozuo zri?"
User avatar
IdioC
 
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:28 pm
Location: Just the forum

Re: A Pax Cynica Case in Point: Inactive Parties

Postby JuliaAJA » Sun Apr 19, 2009 5:42 am

I'm sorry to announce the Zionist International didn't really get far off the ground, but the CZP is a member.
Image
Joined Particracy on: December 18, 2008
Click here for my versions of Siggon's spreadsheets.
User avatar
JuliaAJA
 
Posts: 2205
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 2:53 pm
Location: Cildania

Re: A Pax Cynica Case in Point: Inactive Parties

Postby IdioC » Sun Apr 19, 2009 11:25 pm

Jessaveryja wrote:I'm sorry to announce the Zionist International didn't really get far off the ground, but the CZP is a member.


Just make sure it has a leader in it and it'll survive an arbitration. Promote CZP perhaps if you don't have an active party in the org, then it'll be safe while the CZP is active.
What is that weird Jelbék language what I types with me computer buttons?

"Kae orzy sedrijohylakmek, megàmojylakjek, frjomimek. Kaerjoshu zri? Afrkmojad firja, Kae grzy Zykhiko ajozuo zri?"
User avatar
IdioC
 
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:28 pm
Location: Just the forum


Return to Archive

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 16 guests