RP with Inactive Accounts (Rule Amendment)

[CCP]

Rule:

##. Only 1 Active Account per player is permitted.

Active Account multiing is forbidden and will result in some or all multiple accounts being deactivated or deleted and their owners being sanctioned. Repeat and egregious offenders will be banned.

##.# Inactive Accounts are allowed without limits.

Players may keep and sign into Inactive Accounts. Players may use Inactive Accounts to Role-Play, propose bills, and participate in any country. Players may also Role-Play on the Forum on behalf of their Inactive Account characters and organizations.

##.## Inactive Account users must have the permission of all players within a country at all times.

Any Active Account player may veto the participation of an Inactive Account user in their country at any time by posting a debate Bill with the title "Against: [username of Inactive Account]" or by posting a standing debate bill with the title "No Inactive Accounts Allowed," or by posting a debate bill with the title "Only These Players May Use Inactive Accounts" with names of users listed inside the bill. None of these bills require a vote and should be left in the debate section. A vetoed Inactive Account user must immediately cease participating within or on behalf of the country. Inactive Account users who do not comply with a veto may be reported to Game Administrators. Sanctions may include deletion of some or all accounts.

##.## Inactive Account users should use identifiable party names

Inactive Account users should include an identifiable username within the name of their Inactive Account party in this format: "Al-Badaran Communist Party (CCP/AlkebuLan Ibutho)." This maintains transparency for players and Game Administrators

So this a compromise solution for the discussion in the Let's Allow Multis! thread. What it would do is allow players to assist in the RP and development of more countries, especially one-party Bleeding Heart Lonely Nations.

Please tell us in the thread how you voted and share your reasons and any thoughts.

[CCP]

I voted yes because RPing a country alone causes burn out and there aren't enough active RPers to go around right now.

[derpy]

I support this, as the game seems to think that small parties don't exist, that every party has to run in elections etc. When this isn't true at all.

[Doc]

Inactive accounts in Kalistan would pose a problem- Our RP rule says that only members of the Assembly may comment on bills within our Parliament. With inactive players involved, we would have to deal with that business.

[Prometheus79]

Empty

[derpy]

Okay firstly I disagree with the idea anyone player can request a NGO or Non-electoral organisation to go away.

And I understand the mods must think everything through but we've voted for 2 active accounts in separate nations, we where refused this, so I ask the the comprise actually goes through. May I add would it be possible for us to do something as in Non-Electoral organisations can get Head of State? Or cabinet ministers? That may not be possible but it'd be interesting

[CCP]

Inactive accounts in Kalistan would pose a problem- Our RP rule says that only members of the Assembly may comment on bills within our Parliament. With inactive players involved, we would have to deal with that business.

Prometheus effectively addressed this but deleted his or her posts when leaving the game. So just to reiterate for the record, under this rule, the Kalistan players would be in full control of what any Inactive Account RPer could or couldn't do at all times. Since this rule would allow any Kalistan player to veto the participation of any Inactive Account for any reason or no reason, Kalistan's parliament law would effectively trump this rule. So this rule would change nothing for players who don't want to participate, while allowing maximal RP interaction for players who desire it.

[CCP]

May I add would it be possible for us to do something as in Non-Electoral organisations can get Head of State? Or cabinet ministers? That may not be possible but it'd be interesting

Yes, this rule would make both of those things possible. The Non-Electoral Organization player would simply need to deactivate their main account in their home country, create the Non-Electoral Organization in the other country, and keep the Non-Electoral Organization account activated long enough for the legislature to pass a cabinet bill appointing NEO characters to the cabinet or long enough to call snap elections to make an NEO character head of state. This is actually something we're considering doing in Hawu Mumenhes since our HoS player recently went inactive. If you or anyone else would have any interest in playing our monarch for us, please let me know.

[Doc]

Inactive accounts in Kalistan would pose a problem- Our RP rule says that only members of the Assembly may comment on bills within our Parliament. With inactive players involved, we would have to deal with that business.

Prometheus effectively addressed this but deleted his or her posts when leaving the game. So just to reiterate for the record, under this rule, the Kalistan players would be in full control of what any Inactive Account RPer could or couldn't do at all times. Since this rule would allow any Kalistan player to veto the participation of any Inactive Account for any reason or no reason, Kalistan's parliament law would effectively trump this rule. So this rule would change nothing for players who don't want to participate, while allowing maximal RP interaction for players who desire it.

It may seem like paranoia to a lot of people who frequent the forums, but Kalistan (I am sure like many nations in PT) is frequented by players who see it as a nice fertile ground for fascism. We get visited periodically by Parties, some lasting longer than others, who attempt to, overnight, win seats in an election and then change all of our laws to establish a police state. A lot of these folks drop in on Kalistan without knowing ANYTHING about the country, and not really caring at all. They just RP as if all of a sudden, a huge underground fascist population just waiting for a Party to represent them has ALWAYS been in Kalistan, and then they decry the tyranny of socialist government, allege mass fraud and campaign as if they actually had a base which generates their RP... Then after they basically sandcastle everything (a term, coined by Kalistani players, by the way, to describe this specific sort of behavior) they take off for more fertile pastures or just fade out of the game.

We have methods of dealing with that activity legislatively.

Imagine if someone was allowed to do that without being an active player and having to experience some electoral hurt for their rotten behavior. Imagine if we could just be frequented by people who have zero accountability whatsoever to voters. What a nightmare! For a person who sits in Kalistan and therefore gets to regularly experience this sort of rotten behavior from Active Parties, I can easily imagine how rotten it would be for unaccountable non active players to be able to just phase into Kalistan and proceed to RP as they always have, completely ignoring everything which has happened before and just playing Kalistan as if it always was an alternate reality where fascism was acceptable by any segment of the population, but with no way to do anything about it.

I know the rule claims that we would have control over what non-active players could do at any time, but we have to opt out on a case by case basis and we would have to wait for Moderation to do something about it. That seems like a real burden on Moderation, first of all, but second of all, would involve a LOT of retconning.

If the rule could say something like "A country has to opt-IN to allowing Non active players to play there" we would be more supportive of it, because Kalistan would never opt in.

[CCP]

If the rule could say something like "A country has to opt-IN to allowing Non active players to play there" we would be more supportive of it, because Kalistan would never opt in.

Okay, I'm open to that change and would like to hear others' views on it before including it.

I do want to point out something you may be overlooking though: This rule would actually give players more power to stop the kind of problem you envision in Kalistan (a problem which I and I'm sure all particracy's frequent RPer's understand). Currently, the game rules don't address Inactive Accounts at all (except in party organizations leadership matters) and players variously use them whenever and however they want. There is actually nothing stopping players from pursuing this kind of Inactive Account RP now even without this rule (and we're discussing the possibility of doing that in Hawu Mumenhes if it takes too long to gather support for this rule change). I'm sure we've all either witnessed retired players using their Inactive Accounts to help their old country with housekeeping matters like keeping the Bills in Debate section orderly and up-to-date or have engaged in that practice ourselves. I'm sure we've also all witnessed foreign political parties intervening in other countries' legislative debates to represent their home country's views. The moderators as far as I've seen have (rightly I think) left this sort of use of Inactive Accounts largely undisturbed because it usually is not disruptive, and if it becomes so, players usually know how to engage the moderators to resolve the matter. So this Inactive Accounts RP and bill proposal ability already exists de facto due to game mechanics. Passing this rule would give players in each country more power to control how 'foreigners' use Inactive Accounts in their country because it would establish an official game administrator-enforced authority on the part of players to completely control who, how, when, why, and what can be said and done by Inactive Account users. With the current situation where the rules are silent on the matter, players are left to the whims a (hopefully) sympathetic moderator or left to cobble together make-shift solutions like your use of the RP law workaround to address this.

Now that I've written this, I realize even more that both your goals and mine would be most effectively addressed by the current language of this suggested rule. And so I've added the italicized language in the first post to clarify that. How do you feel about this change?