Would this be Legal?

[Captain-Socialist]

Would it be possible, if I got permission, to take control of someone else's inactive party?

[Valdštejn]

Would it be possible, if I got permission, to take control of someone else's inactive party?

Yes, as long as you don't maintain two active parties at the same time. You should notify us if the player whose party your taking over is still playing, so we know you're not a multi.

[Zanz]

Sneaky, sneaky

[Captain-Socialist]

This is going ahead now - so if Polites could confirm his decision to grant me permission to use his account publicly.

[Polites]

Permission granted.

[Valdštejn]

Please post a link to the party you're using with this permission, so we can make a note of not deactivating it for multiing.

[Captain-Socialist]

http://classic.particracy.net/viewparty ... tyid=18791

[TheNewGuy]

Both users have had a metagroup note attached to their party pages.

[IdioC]

You might not realise it, but this is a landmark judgement on a historical issue. It's a legislative sea-change which means existing rules need updating to not run against it, unfortunately.

Although I should clarify I'm not seeking a reversal in the position at all here (nor would I have the right to do so, even if the horse hadn't bolted six days ago), I would strongly recommend clarifying and codifying conditions for these requests if they are to be allowed; historically, these requests were not permitted. Pax Cynica, as existing, works against permitting these requests. It also exposes some assumptions and weaknesses in Pax Cynica that it did not consider at the time, so I suggest that Pax Cynica is due an amendment if these requests are to be routinely accepted on the following three points:

1. Regarding Control of Accounts of a First Player By a Second

Things move on, but back in the day, these requests were not usually permitted as they offered other players a shortcut to instant positions, visibilities and therefore seats and power. This was deemed unfair on the existing players within the nation who had worked for these positions at the time in question. This led to the ban on "party-sitting" in Pax Cynica (which I think may be an addendum):

2.3.4 Party-Sitting is not allowed: A Player leaving the game momentarily should Inactivate themselves on their User Page.

Party-Sitting, in the spirit of the rules (which, as in most legislatures, counts for precisely sod all), was "A first player running a party started by a second player for a temporary period on the behalf of the second, up to the point of the return of the second player to control of the party". However, Party-Sitting was presumptuously used and never strictly defined in the text (an oversight on my part!), so could be left to the interpretation of moderation.

The challenge this poses to the request, if taken as intended, is that the transfer of the party cannot be temporary or it will fall foul of the rule. Permanent transfer was not considered when the word-of-mouth rules were codified.

(Also, "temporarily" would be a better word than "momentarily" here. People might leave the keyboard momentarily and technically be obligated by the rules to inactivate to get food or beer. I cannot condone depriving a fellow of playing and power for beer; no person should ever be forced to decide between them.).

2. Regarding Reactivation of a Dormant Party

Reactivation of a dormant party is also assumed to be by the original player for the original player's use by most of Pax Cynica, but again not explicitly stated 2.3.4 also stipulates that the user account must be inactivated (by means of inactivation of self on User Page), but does not stipulate explicitly that the player must return to the same party in the same nation, as players may start afresh elsewhere. However, the rule regarding reactivation requests (2.2.5) does not explicitly state that a player requesting reactivation must do so for the player's own use, however much this was presumptuously taken for granted:

2.2.5 A player whose account has been inactivated may request for it to be reactivated on the forum in the moderation section, subject to any sanctions.

3. Regarding Transfer of a Player Between Nations

Although the previous two rules were simple oversights, 2.4.3-5 were drafted to run against the request on the basis of the aforementioned assumptions. As a consequence, they require tightening up. 2.4.3 concerns the transfer of a player as follows:

2.4.3 In order to move nation, the first account must be inactivated and a second created in the new nation.

2.4.3 was coded to ensure players entering new nations for the first time did not get an unfair advantage through assuming another player's mature party (as deemed in the spirit at the time of Pax Cynica's inception). The demand of inactivation of the first (which sounds like a Deltarian in-joke), followed by the creation of a second party, as opposed to an existing one, was meant to ensure this. This main rule (not taking subclauses into account yet) has two problems.

Firstly, it is weakly written so as to not go against legitimate transfer between existing parties owned by the same player (with the active being inactivated and the inactive of choice being reactivated), as often happens when a player leaves a nation to RP elsewhere, then decides to return. Although the creation clause follows the inactivation clause, the rule does not specify explicitly that the party creation must follow the inactivation for this purpose. The creation of the second before the inactivation of the first would violate the multiple accounts rules, but it is written only taking the first transfer into account as existing, ignoring the ability of players to return.

Secondly, it does not state that the first and second accounts must be created by and controlled by the same player, which was taken for granted as per the reactivation issue.

The subclauses to 2.4.3 I believe to present a large challenge to accepting the type of request presented.

2.4.3.1 Visibilities and Positions cannot be transferred.

2.4.3.2 As with all inactivations, the seats in the first nation will be lost.

2.4.3.2 restates that inactivations result in loss of seats. As such, transfer of parties as requested, if they are to be permitted, must be in the inactivated state and not done whilst live. The latter would also count as party-sitting unless the transfer was permanent.

2.4.3.1 categorically states that visibilities and positions cannot be transferred. In a game engine sense, it is physically impossible to transfer positions and visibilities between parties, a party attached to these visibilities between nations and ultimately a user account associated with a party attached to these visibilities between nations. It could be argued that the transfer from one player to another of the user account associated with a mature party is the transfer of visibilities and positions, forbidden without caveat by 2.4.3.1, this was certainly the spirit intended. The counter-argument to this would be to say that the visibilities and positions of the parties in question have not been transferred and so this would not violate the rule, however, as this would be physically impossible as stated before, the rule would be pointless were it not legislating for the transfer of visibilities and positions between players and accounts.

---

To conclude, Pax Cynica as standing runs against this request, not by legislating for permanent transfer of accounts between players, but by prohibiting the transfer of positions and visibilities without exception.

Although things will always progress in a game, with the rules being no exception and the original spirit of the rules is never a rule in itself, to permit these requests, amendments are required.

Based on the above, subject to opinion and interpretion of the current powers that be, such an amendment would need to legislate for:
*Transfer of accounts between players
(Request Process, Exceptions, Acceptable proof of consent, Compensation to players in nation for having a newcomer having the advantage of another's prior work)
*The regulation of reactivation of accounts
(Request Process, Stipulation of original player requesting reactivation in existing rules, stipulation of requirement of proof of consent for reactivation as part of a transfer as above)
*Tightening of 2.4.3
(Explicitly stating account transfer as an exception, explicitly permitting transfer to an older account (to be reactivated) instead of stating afresh)
*Correcting C's ham-fisted use of language and general oversight)
(Changing "momentarily" to "temporarily" in 2.2.5, defining party-sitting explicitly and check for others, there have to be some!)

Perhaps issue some temporary decrees by moderation concensus to tighten the gaps and prevent their exploitation, then test the water with the players on the forum to see what the mood is -- quite often players favour things that are banned or banning things that are in favour as time goes on -- then prototype some laws for approval.

Good luck with the process and I hope this leads to a strengthened ruleset more in tune with the players of 2013 than 2008!

[TheNewGuy]

2.4.3.1 Visibilities and Positions cannot be transferred.

2.4.3.1 categorically states that visibilities and positions cannot be transferred. In a game engine sense, it is physically impossible to transfer positions and visibilities between parties, a party attached to these visibilities between nations and ultimately a user account associated with a party attached to these visibilities between nations. It could be argued that the transfer from one player to another of the user account associated with a mature party is the transfer of visibilities and positions, forbidden without caveat by 2.4.3.1, this was certainly the spirit intended. The counter-argument to this would be to say that the visibilities and positions of the parties in question have not been transferred and so this would not violate the rule, however, as this would be physically impossible as stated before, the rule would be pointless were it not legislating for the transfer of visibilities and positions between players and accounts.

Out of curiosity, why not just write "parties cannot be transferred," then, if that was the intent? Why word it this way, when "vibisilities and positions" cannot be transferred in any way except metaphorically by the transfer of a party outright? Why not just say "Parties cannot be transferred?"