Game Rules Consultation- Section 8 (Inactivation)

Talk and plan things about the game with other players.

Game Rules Consultation- Section 8 (Inactivation)

Postby jamescfm » Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:01 pm

Moderation has decided to propose a revision to Section 8 of the Game Rules, which relates to the inactivation of in-game accounts. Although the exact details of the proposed change can be seen below, the most significant changes are:
  • the removal of Section 8.1.2
  • the removal of Section 8.2.1
  • merging Sections 8.3, 8.4 and 8.5 into one section
  • the rewriting of Sections 8.6 and 8.6.1
  • slight change to the "party sitting" rule
We encourage all players to provide feedback on this proposed change so that we can ensure we make the right decision. Initially, we will be allowing a period of at least a week for comments and we will make a decision then on whether we allow further time for discussion based on the level of input.

Section 8 currently reads:
8. Inactivation.

Players will be inactivated in the following circumstances:

8.1 They have not logged into their account for 4 days.

8.1.1 They have not logged into their account for at least 3 days (72 hours) and another player from the same nation has requested their early inactivation.

8.1.2 ALL of the following apply: they have not named their party (usually meaning one separate from their username), filled in their party description, voted on any bills or logged in within the last 48 hours.

8.2 They appear to be "party sitting". Players who, over a prolonged period (usually meaning a minimum of 3 IG years/6 RL days) are just logging in but not voting on bills or contributing to debates, will be judged to be essentially not playing the game.

8.2.1 In circumstances where a player with above-minimum Visibility levels has just reactivated but then not logged in for 48 hours, and the next election is due within the next 24 hours (6 in-game months), Moderation will inactivate the player's account if this is requested by another player in the nation.

8.3 They are in breach of the rules but have not made the necessary corrections within 4 days of being requested to do so by Moderation.

8.4 They have fallen foul of the procedures against multi-accounting, as described in section 2.

8.5 They have committed an offence against the rules serious enough to warrant the inactivation of their party.

8.6 After judging it to be in the best interests of gameplay, the Nationmaster has requested the inactivation of a party after a minimum of 2 days (48 hours) of inactivity. When making the communication, the Nationmaster should make clear they are making a Nationmaster request. Moderation reserves the discretion to query or decline the request if there appears to be a strong reason for doing so.

8.6.1 After judging it to be in the best interests of gameplay, the Nationmaster has requested the inactivation of a party, as a matter of last resort, when the player has not been contributing to the role-play of the nation to the extent that is expected by the majority of players in the nation. Respectful dialogue should always be attempted before this point is reached, and Moderation should be consulted during this process.

These situations should be dealt with discreetly and sensitively. For example, there should never be an open vote over whether a player should be asked to leave.

Below is the new Section 8 which we are proposing:
8. Inactivation.

In certain circumstances, Moderation will need to inactivate a player's in-game account. Players will be inactivated in the following circumstances:

8.1 They have not logged into their account for at least four days.

8.2 They have not logged into their account for at least three days and another player in the same nation has requested their inactivation.

8.3 They appear to be "party sitting". "Party sitting" is defined as logging in to an account without voting on bills, for a period of at least six days.

8.4 They have committed an offence against the Game Rules serious enough to warrant their inactivation, such as failing to conform to a nation's Cultural Protocols within four days of being told or the multi-accounting described in Section 2.

8.5 Judging it to be in the best interests of gameplay, the Nationmaster in their nation has requested their inactivation. Moderation reserves the right to query or decline these requests if they feel there is a compelling reason to do so. A Nationmaster may request inactivation in the following circumstances:

8.5.1 They have not logged into their account for at least two days.

8.5.2 As a matter of last resort, when the player has not been contributing to role-play to the extent that is expected by the majority of players in the nation. Understanding and respectful dialogue must be attempted before this point and Moderation should be consulted throughout the process. Such situations should be dealt with sensitively and fairly, for example there should never be a vote on whether an account should be inactivated.


Thanks in advance to all!
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5474
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: Game Rules Consultation- Section 8 (Inactivation)

Postby LukasV » Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:05 pm

Considering that the game rules themselves need an overhaul to become much less convoluted and poorly written, this is a step in the right direction.
Get All That You Deserve In This World

Free Speech Fundamentalist
Classical Liberal/Libertarian
A Necessary Evil
Haterz Gon' Hate

"You believe you have dominion
So you force your lame opinions on me
And my eggshell mind"
User avatar
LukasV
 
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Poland

Re: Game Rules Consultation- Section 8 (Inactivation)

Postby Pragma » Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:07 pm

Agreed with Lukas.

Let's try not to make this a ranty argument about free speech, guys.
Currently playing in: Cildania

Image Vascanian Empire
User avatar
Pragma
 
Posts: 1416
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 2:29 pm
Location: your mother

Re: Game Rules Consultation- Section 8 (Inactivation)

Postby sspb314 » Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:11 pm

My only problem is with the removal of 8.1.2, when you have people who just join and never do anything, not only does it make the nation page look messy, but it can also stop new players who want to join a particular nation from doing so.
User avatar
sspb314
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2017 4:47 pm

Re: Game Rules Consultation- Section 8 (Inactivation)

Postby Mbites » Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:28 pm

I generally agree with these changes except for 8.1.2, that article has a purpose and it works out quite well.

QV73 wrote:Agreed with Lukas.

Let's try not to make this a ranty argument about free speech, guys.


>says lets try not to make this a ranty argument about free speech, guys.
>brings it up first
"It looked like a silly semi-cliquey thing between a few players to me. Following around a troll called Mbites like he was some sort of god... which wouldn't have mattered so much in the scale of things, except one of them was a Mod."
User avatar
Mbites
 
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat May 07, 2016 11:15 am

Re: Game Rules Consultation- Section 8 (Inactivation)

Postby Aethan » Mon Nov 06, 2017 6:12 pm

sspb314 wrote:My only problem is with the removal of 8.1.2, when you have people who just join and never do anything, not only does it make the nation page look messy, but it can also stop new players who want to join a particular nation from doing so.


I think 8.5.1 and 8.5.2 may cover the elimination of 8.1.2...
In Marea - Civis Sinistram - Selucia Former
Left Bloc - Istalia
Bright Spring - Kirlawa

PT Wiki Admin
User avatar
Aethan
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 7:59 am
Location: Somewhere in the Iberian Peninsula

Re: Game Rules Consultation- Section 8 (Inactivation)

Postby Elf » Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:11 pm

Fully support!

As I've said before - the rules are in need of an extensive overhaul. Not really because for 'free speech' like suggested above, but rather because they've become unnecessary long (longer than the US. Constitution including all of its amendments!) complex and time-consuming to handle for both players and moderators, and it's hard to find the relevant information for new players. This is a step in the right direction.


Keep up the good work, guys! :D
Shiny happy people holding hands
Shiny happy people holding hands
Shiny happy people laughing
User avatar
Elf
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:01 am
Location: Kali Yuga

Re: Game Rules Consultation- Section 8 (Inactivation)

Postby Maxington » Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:14 pm

Aethan wrote:
sspb314 wrote:My only problem is with the removal of 8.1.2, when you have people who just join and never do anything, not only does it make the nation page look messy, but it can also stop new players who want to join a particular nation from doing so.


I think 8.5.1 and 8.5.2 may cover the elimination of 8.1.2...


Yes, but you have to take into consideration certain nations do not have nationmasters.
"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: Game Rules Consultation- Section 8 (Inactivation)

Postby stuntmonkey » Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:20 pm

Agreed. 8.1.2 is very useful if in a country without a nationmaster. Other than that all good.
“I venture to suggest that patriotism is not a short and frenzied outburst of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.”

― AES II

Current party - Haruzuterēchisuku Refonpātī
stuntmonkey
 
Posts: 478
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 1:37 pm

Re: Game Rules Consultation- Section 8 (Inactivation)

Postby jamescfm » Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:24 pm

Undoubtedly, the removal of 8.1.2 is the most significant change and it took us some time to make a decision on the matter. I'll explain my personal reasoning for the change, for other players to consider and, should they see fit, critique. First thing to note is that in the grand scheme of things, 8.1.2 is very rarely used. For example, the most recent time I could find when scanning through was about three weeks ago. Obviously, a rule not being used very often doesn't mean it shouldn't exist but in this case, the idea is that it helps to prevent a build-up of inactive parties. Usually, these are accounts which are created and then never used again, which is a relatively common occurrence in the game.

Nonetheless, the reason I felt that this particular rule was no longer necessary is a combination of the (new) 8.2 and 8.5.1. Clearly if an account is created and never logs in again, they won't gain any visibility and will be unsuccessful in elections. Therefore, their inactivation can simply be requested under the "three day rule". As sspb314 pointed out, the real reason that this can become a problem is when you have new players wanting to join a nation and they can't because a party like the kind I've described is occupying a slot. My counter-argument is that any nation which is sufficiently popular that this situation will arise is likely to have a nationmaster. In this case, we would expect the nationmaster to exercise 8.5.1.

With all that said, I'm interested to hear what everyone else thinks and if anybody has experienced situations similar to the kind that I've described then that would be particularly helpful to hear.

On an unrelated note, I forgot to mention in my original post that the definition of "party sitting" has been altered slightly. Since I've been in Moderation, this has been a constant source of confusion and it's one of the things we are asked about most commonly. Our hope is that the new definition is much clearer than the current one.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5474
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Next

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests

cron