Questions re: rule changes made Dec 5 2018

Threads from before the Dec 15, 2023 migration.

Questions re: rule changes made Dec 5 2018

Postby Zanz » Wed Dec 05, 2018 6:34 pm

Image
For those who might not be on Discord, this is what this post is referring to

Hi! I have a few questions / requests for clarification or rewording about the rule changes made to section 5d of the rules and hoped you guys can help clear them up.

Questions:
  • Why was this announced on the Discord but nowhere on the forum? There are many users active on the forum who are not also on the Discord - do we assume that all users will re-read the rules each day to ensure they're compliant with new rules that have been implemented without their knowledge?
  • Was there any consideration given to allowing the community to comment on these changes before they were implemented? I have several thoughts (see below) and this might have been more smoothly implemented if others were given the chance to comment.

Suggestions/Specific questions about the rule changes

Section 5 d I wrote:I. they have the log-in-bug;


Can we clarify what the "log-in-bug" is in the text of this line? If a user has not encountered it before, they might not know what this means. Could we just say "they have the log-in-bug (their "Last Recorded Activity" says "Not recorded") [that's how this manifests, right?]

Related - if a user is in this situation, they'll just need to create a new party, right? Should we state that in the rules, just to save Moderation time? I care less about this, it'd be more an easier way for you guys to preempt problems.

More important related - The rules in Section 5 A, B, and C don't ever actually point out that the log-in-bug is grounds for inactivation. Presumably if it's grounds for not reactivating, and given that we're now codifying that in section 5 D, we should probably put it somewhere in 5 A, B, or C?

Section 5 d II wrote:II. are in breach of the rules;


I have no issues with this one, think it's a good rule.

Section 5 d III wrote:III. they have been inactivated as either a “party-sitter”, a multi or for using proxy IP addresses three or more times total;


This one's got problems.
  • Do we actually tell people they're being inactivated as a "party-sitter"? How do I know that that's why my party was inactivated and therefore that's why I'm being prevented from reactivation?
  • Same question re: multis as I asked about party sitters
  • Can we not only list "proxy IP addresses" but also "Tor or other similar sites"? Something like "[...] or for using proxy IP addresses, Tor, or other similar means which mask IP address, in violation of Section 2 a ii."? This would make it clear exactly the sort of behavior that is not allowed. (Could we also update Section 2 a ii to specifically mention that Tor is not OK?)
  • How did we land on "three or more times total"? Multi-ing and using proxies are really annoying infractions that you have to specifically be trying to circumvent the rules to be inactivated for - these are the sorts of things that warrant a one-strike-you're-out approach in my opinion.

Section 5 d IV wrote:IV. if they have been inactivated on the grounds of rules 5.c.ii to 5.c.iii three or more times in total.


Isn't the 5.c.iii section of this redundant with the rule laid out in 5.d.iii above? Couldn't we just include in 5.d.iii that violating 5.c.ii is also part of the three strikes rule?

Section 5 d V wrote:V. if they have been inactive without clear intent of being active in the past


What does "without clear intent of being active in the past" mean? I have no clue what this rule is trying to do, and I worry that it essentially ends up being really nit-pickable... How do mods know the "intent" of any player? Can we just reword it as "The Moderation reserves the right to not reactivate anyone for any reason at their discretion"? That's a more honest wording of what you're saying, as far as I can tell.
Just a bunch of shit.
User avatar
Zanz
 
Posts: 1488
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:13 pm

Re: Questions re: rule changes made Dec 5 2018

Postby Rogue » Wed Dec 05, 2018 9:06 pm

Goodday Zanz,

Thank you for your questions and i will gladly answer them one by one

Why was this announced on the Discord but nowhere on the forum? There are many users active on the forum who are not also on the Discord - do we assume that all users will re-read the rules each day to ensure they're compliant with new rules that have been implemented without their knowledge?


The rule change was made today while i was at work. While i acknowledge that i may have had to wait with posting before i made the change i believe these changes are essential and extremelly important. To make a long story short i had no time to post on the forum yet and will do so soon.


Was there any consideration given to allowing the community to comment on these changes before they were implemented?


No. There was not. And the main reason for this was because moderation believes these changes are absolutely neccessary and will give us the tools to deal with the problems that many of the players reported to us regarding inactivity and party sitting. It was a clear decision not to allow the community to comment on the changes.


Can we clarify what the "log-in-bug" is in the text of this line? If a user has not encountered it before, they might not know what this means.


This is meant as a response to that entire question. Players will be send a message on both the forum and the inactivated account they are asking a reactivation for. At all instances we will explain the problem (in this case the bug) and tell them how to fix it if possible. So in this case we tell them to, yes, make a new account. I will also be looking in that inactivation section to see what we can do about that,


This one's got problems

responding to all those

-We do tell the person in question that for example party sitting is the reason for inactivation and prevention for reactivation, same goes for multis.

-As we see it (and as the rule was intended) "proxy IP-adresses" also includes Tor. It includes any program that makes use of proxy adresseses as well as any personal action resulting in proxies. I think this one is pretty clear.

-This was implemented to give people some fair chances. Every player will be warned at every violation ofcourse. but even though we would like to be more strict its also our obligation to give someone a chance or two. Although we could alter this to 2 times instead of three. We will keep you up to date on that


Isn't the 5.c.iii section of this redundant with the rule laid out in 5.d.iii above?


Good point and ill look into it


What does "without clear intent of being active in the past" mean? I have no clue what this rule is trying to do, and I worry that it essentially ends up being really nit-pickable

Answering whole question

Its pretty easy. As moderators we constantly see people requesting a reactivation ofcourse. Sometimes however there is someone that doesnt classify as a party-sitter but still has a extreme tendency of reactivating every now and then, posting a bill or two, just play along 1 election cycle and then leave when the seats are in. This is extremelly annoying and in many cases we cant clasify it as party-sitting because of them using just the right amount of activity every reactivation.

This is one of the things i got many complaints and questions about. Like for example "cant you do anything about this? this is b*shit" and sometimes i unfortunately had to say "no, sorry, i cant"

With this rule we gain the tools to deal with those kinds of people. If someone has been active during his or her period in a nation (posting bills, debating frequently or having forum RP, staying more then 1 election cycle) then we HAVE to reactivate him or her UNLESS any of the other new rules have been breached. This particular rule is not a blank card with which we can choose who we dont like and just not reactivate them. I know thats a fear but be assured that isnt the case.

I hope to have answered you sufficiently. If there are any other questions feel free to ask them.

Mr.God
Playing in:

Istapali
User avatar
Rogue
 
Posts: 4218
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:11 pm

Re: Questions re: rule changes made Dec 5 2018

Postby jamescfm » Wed Dec 05, 2018 9:10 pm

I share some of the concerns raised here by Zanz. In particular, I am somewhat disappointed in the process that has been followed here by Moderation. Similar changes in the past have usually been preceded by a public consultation (see this thread for an example of the very same rules being altered). A related point is that we no longer have a record of what the previous rules were, as we would have if a consultation had taken place.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5470
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: Questions re: rule changes made Dec 5 2018

Postby Rogue » Wed Dec 05, 2018 9:16 pm

jamescfm wrote:I share some of the concerns raised here by Zanz. In particular, I am somewhat disappointed in the process that has been followed here by Moderation. Similar changes in the past have usually been preceded by a public consultation (see this thread for an example of the very same rules being altered). A related point is that we no longer have a record of what the previous rules were, as we would have if a consultation had taken place.


There was a clear and concious decision not to create a public consultation period.
We have been receiving a mountain of complainst regarding these problems for a year before my appointment.
Every active player has encountered the problems regarding this issue at least once and therefor we felt like exactly the changes we made now were needed.
Playing in:

Istapali
User avatar
Rogue
 
Posts: 4218
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:11 pm

Re: Questions re: rule changes made Dec 5 2018

Postby Maxington » Wed Dec 05, 2018 9:42 pm

I have opposition to the changes, especially the clause that says that inactivated users cannot be reactivated if they are in "Breach of the Rules." That phrase is a magic wand. It's vagueness leaves room for wild interpretation and may i say unfair rulings. The phrase could apply to any rule. It can be interpreted as such: Let's say that i reported a player for not using culturally appropriate names in certain nations, I could argue that because he was in breach of the rule which discusses the correlation between the cultural protocol and naming, said player should not be reactivated. Such a minor infringement should not carry such a heavy sanction. I also agree that the community should have had at-least been given "heads up" on such changes. These changes came like a thief in the night.

If it is one thing humans hate, it is change. If it is one thing that humans fear, it is change without transparency.
"The future of the Nation is in the children's school bags" ~ Dr. Eric Williams
President of the Trond Henrichsen Institute for International Affairs.
User avatar
Maxington
 
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 11:37 pm
Location: Look Behind you.

Re: Questions re: rule changes made Dec 5 2018

Postby soysauce » Wed Dec 05, 2018 9:44 pm

Questions
- If I've had a party that I've used for many years, and over that time it has been inactivated for inactivity on two separate occasions, will it be refused reactivation next time it goes inactive for inactivity...

- By "they" do you refer to players as individuals? or to parties ingame?

- If you are referring to players, should it be assumed that players that have been inactivated more than three times for inactivity are effectively banned?

- If you are referring to parties, do you recognise that players actually have real lives? and that being inactivated for inactivity is a somewhat inevitable occurrence.

- What does Rule 5.D.II (in breach of rules) refer to? Surely any breach of rules should be dealt with under existing mechanisms rather than this...

Questions regarding 5.d.v
- Why are parties not allowed to be sporadically active?

- Why is the rule so badly defined?
User avatar
soysauce
 
Posts: 1100
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 6:02 pm
Location: tir na n-og

Re: Questions re: rule changes made Dec 5 2018

Postby jamescfm » Wed Dec 05, 2018 9:55 pm

Mr.God wrote:There was a clear and concious decision not to create a public consultation period.
We have been receiving a mountain of complainst regarding these problems for a year before my appointment.
Every active player has encountered the problems regarding this issue at least once and therefor we felt like exactly the changes we made now were needed.
Not sure I have ever experienced the problem you're describing (though for the record, I'm not exactly clear on what the problem being fixed here is). Even if we assume there is a massive demand for these changes, the purpose of a consultation isn't only to gauge player opinion on changes, it is also to allow the community to pinpoint any potential issues which might arise. In the consultation I linked, for example, an amended "compromise" proposal was reached in the end because players pointed out an issue which might arise if we implemented the proposal as written. The problems highlighted by Zanz could have been resolved prior to implementation if a consultation had been held in advance.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5470
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: Questions re: rule changes made Dec 5 2018

Postby soysauce » Wed Dec 05, 2018 10:04 pm

I have just been told that my previous parties that have been inactivated more than three times now cannot be reactivated.

In the past I allowed parties to go inactive on the understanding that it was not against any rule, further the nature of my occupation means that I do sometimes become unable to play with little to no notice. lso, some players have had the same parties open for years, I dare say it's understandable that over the course of x many years a player might go involuntarily absent more than a couple of times. Apparently Inactivity is always wrong though and I'm a bit ignorant for thinking otherwise....


I must say I find it absolutely absurd that moderation is taking such a hard line approach, and that a major rule change that is apparently being applied retrospectively has been pushed through with absolutely no consultation.

A
Soyiz (Wu Coup)Today at 21:49
Ok, can I ask for clarification then?
I have a party that has been inactivated three times for inactivity. Is it possible for me to reactivate it?
Mr.GodToday at 21:50
no
not if the reason for your inactivation was just u being inactive
without giving moderation prior notice

Soyiz (Wu Coup)Today at 21:51
But, I allowed it to become inactivated back when there was no penalty for being inactive
Mr.GodToday at 21:51
to the reason of your inactivity
Soyiz (Wu Coup)Today at 21:51
on the understanding that it was ok
I was never told that allowing my party to go inactive would eventually render it unable to be revived. There was no rule against it at the time
Mr.GodToday at 21:53
Honestly. Presuming inactivity is an OK thing is just a bit ignorant. Everyone knows inactivity is not OK. and if you want to be inactive dont reactivate the party in the first place
that was one of the problems
User avatar
soysauce
 
Posts: 1100
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 6:02 pm
Location: tir na n-og

Re: Questions re: rule changes made Dec 5 2018

Postby Rogue » Wed Dec 05, 2018 10:32 pm

Not sure I have ever experienced the problem you're describing (though for the record, I'm not exactly clear on what the problem being fixed here is). Even if we assume there is a massive demand for these changes, the purpose of a consultation isn't only to gauge player opinion on changes, it is also to allow the community to pinpoint any potential issues which might arise. In the consultation I linked, for example, an amended "compromise" proposal was reached in the end because players pointed out an issue which might arise if we implemented the proposal as written. The problems highlighted by Zanz could have been resolved prior to implementation if a consultation had been held in advance.



I get what you are saying. And in some cases i absolutely believe a public consultation is important. In this case we decided a public consultation would not deliver a result favourable for the players themselves. back when i was a player i would not have liked any of these changes either. But they are necessary if we are to more effectively deal with party-sitters, nationraiders and long time inactive parties.

I do agree that the wording could be different. And seeing that many of you agree on that i will be working with CM and Luis to change the wording of these changes so they are less unclear.
Playing in:

Istapali
User avatar
Rogue
 
Posts: 4218
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:11 pm

Re: Questions re: rule changes made Dec 5 2018

Postby jamescfm » Wed Dec 05, 2018 10:38 pm

Mr.God wrote:I get what you are saying. And in some cases i absolutely believe a public consultation is important. In this case we decided a public consultation would not deliver a result favourable for the players themselves. back when i was a player i would not have liked any of these changes either. But they are necessary if we are to more effectively deal with party-sitters, nationraiders and long time inactive parties.

I do agree that the wording could be different. And seeing that many of you agree on that i will be working with CM and Luis to change the wording of these changes so they are less unclear.

Holding a public consultation isn't the same as holding a referendum on changes, even if all the feedback you had received had been negative, you would still have been free to implement the changes but you would at least have known in advance that the wording was unclear and that players had concerns. It seems to me that the part of this reply that I have bolded is the exact reason why we hold public consultations. Even with three Moderators considering a change, you might still miss some issue that a member of the community can quickly point out and then we can resolved prior to unilaterally implementing changes.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5470
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Next

Return to Archive

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

cron