jamescfm wrote:Not sure if Moderation is still interested in hearing feedback on the second accounts scheme, given that it is no longer really an "experiment", however I would like to share some feedback from my own experience and invite other players to express their own views. If Moderation feel it is appropriate then feel free to move this response to an alternative location, or a new thread.
Based on my personal experience and on observing the impact that the scheme has had on role-play in the game, I think that the second account scheme has been successful at meeting its intended objectives as I perceive them. For example, I believe it has created more interesting internal political dynamics in Jakania and Seko (the two countries my accounts are based in). If it were not for the second account schemes, the chances are both countries would only have one active role-player, as it happens they both have two. The role-play being conducted in Davostan provides an example of a country that would probably be empty if it were not for the second account scheme.
Nonetheless I do have a couple of general concerns about the current implementation of the scheme that I think it would be useful to have clarified or reconsidered. Both have been brought to Moderation attention but perhaps not in a manner that is useful for providing feedback so I will reformulate them here in order to have them addressed specifically.
The first is a concern about the behaviour of Moderation in relation to the scheme, specifically there have been multiple cases of Moderation acting in ways that the rules specifically prohibit them from doing, the most recent example being Mr.God's creation of a second account in Kizenia without seeking approval. Not much can really be done about this other than to ask that Moderation follow the procedures they expect other players to at all times and provide an example for other players.
While the two accounts that Mr.God operated are both now inactive, there has still be no formal response from him. From the outside, it looks like the other two Moderators were not aware of his behaviour until it was brought to public attention. I believe it would be beneficial for Mr.God to offer an explanation as to why he thought this was appropriate conduct and a commitment that it will not happen again and then we can safely move on from the whole affair.
The second query I have is related to something that Auditorii shared in response to his rejection of a request a few days ago. In his response, he provided an outline of five criteria that Moderation uses to determine whether or not to approve a request for a second active account. A couple of these are not controversial and are stated clearly in the current rules, however there is one particular criterion that I believe Moderation should considering abandoning and this is the consideration of whether there are empty countries in the game already.
At present the Moderation position seems to be that if there are currently countries in the game that have no active parties then they will not approve a request to operate a second account in a country that already has parties. The application of this policy leaves some room for discretion it seems, since both Wu and I were approved to operate second accounts in Jakania and Seko respectively. Nonetheless I think applying this criterion unnecessarily discourages role-play and does not fit with the spirit of the second account scheme.
For some players it seems that their primary style of role-play is based on being the sole player in a country and producing role-play that relates to the overall economy and society of that country. Several examples of this can be seen in the game at the moment, such as in Kazulia or Dorvik. The advantage of this style is that allows players to have much greater control and flexibility over the development of the country and to engage more directly in international role-play. On the other hand, some players prefer to be part of a multi-party country with many players involved in producing role-play. Current examples of this can be seen in Istalia and Hutori. The advantage of this style is that it allows much more dynamic role-play because you have many players interacting and bringing ideas to the table.
Most countries and players probably fall somewhere between these two extremes in terms of style, but the point I am trying to make is that neither style is inherently better than the other. Even if you just consider the examples I have referenced, you'll see that the four countries at the top of military and political rankings are currently split exactly between the two styles. Both styles enable interesting role-play that enriches the overall role-play within the community. For this reason, I do not think it is useful or fair to have the second account system set up in such a way that it encourages the first style, which it currently does.
I hope that this feedback is taken in the right spirit and does not obscure the fact that I believe the system overall has been a success. Perhaps other players, particularly those who have had experience with the system, could share their thoughts. It may be the case that my view on the "empty countries" rule is a minority one, in which case there's no reason to change, but the fact that players still seem to want to play in multi-player countries indicates otherwise. I look forward to hearing from other players.
As always James your feedback is always welcome, and I was glad to give it a through reading and review.
I can't speak for Mr. God and so I'll let him speak for himself.
As for the second, as noted the Empty Nation protocol is only one of the criteria we that we follow, and it's not one we will always follow, ultimately as it has been noted we allow for second accounts at our discretion. However, I will speak over your feedback with the rest of the Moderation Team.
Dorvik | 
Zardugal | 
Ostland (FBC)