Proposed update to section 10 of the Game Rules

[jamescfm]

Below is the proposed update to section 10 of the Game Rules, which concerns the second accounts scheme. For the purpose of comparison, the current rules have been copied below too.

The updated proposal aims to provide greater clarity about how Moderation evaluates second account requests. The requirement to include a specific template in requests has been dropped, and a specific process for when permission is withdrawn has been added.

Before the change is implemented, there will be a community feedback period that will last at least until the end of the day on 12 April 2024, and longer if required. If you have any complains, suggestions, queries, please share these in the thread below.

CURRENT RULES

Section 10 - Second Active Accounts

1. Players can request authorization for a second active account in the "Second Account Authorization Request" thread located HERE;
-- 1a. Moderation reserves the right to approve or deny any requests at their discretion;
-- 1b. Players must have at least a 30 day old forum account in order to qualify (among other qualifications determined by Moderation);
-- 1c. Players are required to use the same email on both accounts;

2. Users that are authorized to have a second active account will be registered in the "Second Accounts Register" located HERE. Moderation will make all efforts to ensure that this list is kept up to date;

3. Users that are not located on the aforementioned register are in violation of Section 2.1 and will have their accounts deactivated unless 10.7 applies to the circumstance;

4. Users that are authorized to have a second account are not permitted to play within the same nation and are generally requested to avoid being on the same continent as their primary account;

5. Users that are authorized to have a second account are not permitted to engage in any serious or potentially conflicting RP with their primary account nation without authorized consent of Moderation;

6. Moderation will work to ensure a fair system of secondary active accounts in relation to the Game Rules and the RP rules;

7. Users must create their second account prior to submission, please note that the party must be inactivated immediately following creation pending approval by Moderation. If a user fails to inactivate their party following creation a warning will be given, the proposed secondary account inactivated and Moderation will determine the best course of action to handle the infraction;

8. When applying for a second account users must submit using the following template:

Code: Select all

[b]Current in-game account:[/b] USERNAME - COUNTRY (link to party)
[b]Proposed second in-game account:[/b] PROPOSED USERNAME - PROPOSED COUNTRY (link to proposed party)

-- 8a. Users may be asked to provide a brief descriptor on their intentions for the country if required by Moderation.

PROPOSED UPDATE

Section 10 - Second Accounts

1. Under certain conditions, players are permitted to operate a second account. Permission to operate a second account is a privilege that requires a significant degree of trust. Players must ensure they understand the second account system before requesting permission. Attempts to abuse the system represent a serious breach of trust.

2. To qualify for permission to operate a second account, players must have a forum account that is at least thirty days old.

3. Players who wish to operate a second account should post a request in the Second Accounts thread. The request should include a link to their current account and a link to the proposed second account. Prior to making a request, players are permitted to create a second account in a different country but they must immediately inactivate it. The same email address must be used for both accounts.

4. Players are not permitted to operate two accounts in the same country and are expected to keep role-play with their two accounts separate at all times. As a result, players are not permitted to operate two accounts in neighbouring countries, or in two countries with a close historical or political connection.

5. When making a decision on second account requests, Moderation will consider the quality of the role-play a player has produced in the period before the request was made. Consideration will also be given to a player’s ability to demonstrate they are committed to role-playing in the country where they are applying for a second account.

6. If a second account request is approved, the two accounts will be added to the Second Accounts Register and the proposed second account will be reactivated.

7. If either of a player's accounts are inactivated, the player will be given a twenty-four hour period to request reactivation. After this, their permission to operate a second account will be withdrawn and their name will be removed from the register.

[Zanz]

I like these proposed updates. In particular I appreciate the wording of 10.4, which allows for easier justification of 2A to do things like restore Jelbe when I was playing actively in Cildania, etc.

In 10.2, the proposed update states "a good record in terms of respecting the Game Rules" is necessary. I wonder if we should define that and make it more objective (and then probably apply it across all 'privileged activities' like 2A, FBC control, etc.). I mention this because similar vagueness in other rules has bothered me in past and also especially given the feedback voiced by Mr.God elsewhere recently. Players should probably have the right to know when their historical rule breaking will stop being used as a factor in decisions, and Moderation should probably not have the right to hold historical rule breaches against a player indefinitely.

Maybe this could be something like "and must not have been subject of any formal Moderation action (warnings, bans, etc.) for a period of ____ prior to their request being lodged." I'd be in favor of this period being relatively long (because I want the rules to matter, and I do think that 2A and FBC control should be control quite tightly). Maybe a period of 12 months with no warnings, a period of 24 months without bans? I forget the actual wording Greek proposed for bans/warnings, we should likely ensure we match that phrasing if his proposals before are still in play.

[GreekIdiot]

2. To qualify for permission to operate a second account, players must have a forum account that is at least thirty days old, and a good record in terms of respecting the Game Rules.

=>

2. Players who had a warning issued in the last 12 months will not be approved; those with a temporary ban in the past will not be approved at all.

edit; that forum account duration is kinda weird no? what if i lose my account and make a new one?

[Zanz]

Think the intent of the forum account rule is that players who are brand new to forum RP are not considered for a presumably RP-focused 2A, since we cannot know the quality of their RP. I think that intent is good. Forum account loss should be very rare - I don't think we should worry too much about that, in my opinion.

I don't know that I personally support a permanent ban on 'privileged activities' for those who have been temporarily banned ever in the past, as we know as a community that temporary bans have been handed out with questionable merit by previous administrations. Such a wording as Greek proposes would prohibit some of the current RPC/Moderation team from ever playing 2nd accounts, I believe, and I don't think that's appropriate.

Instead, a ban from privileged activities that extends for a certain time after a temporary ban has expired feels appropriate to me. THAT SAID, I think my own 24 month suggestion would probably still mean that at least some of the current admin staff couldn't get a 2A or FBC, so maybe I'm nitpicking

[GreekIdiot]

if we go down that road we prob either need to enforce a blank slate or enforce

[jamescfm]

I agree with Zanz's original point that the current phrasing is inadequate. I'm not sure I have an obvious answer about how to expand upon it. Rather than specify the standard in the text of the rules, perhaps it would be better to do this when a ban is issued. For example, a player might be issued with a 30 day ban and a 6 month ban from the second account scheme.

For me, there are two advantages to this approach. The first has already been mentioned: it would mean effectively a blank slate for players who were banned before the rules were changed. The second benefit is that the length of the ban could be varied depending on the nature of the offence. For example, a person who has been banned from the game for repeatedly operating multiple unauthorised accounts should probably be prevented from having a second account for longer than somebody who was banned for other reasons.

[Zanz]

To make my position clear on something that hasn't been explicitly stated yet but that has come up a few times now - I am of the opinion that everyone currently playing should be grandfathered in for any rules changes that come. That is to say, rather than offering a blank slate for this specific rule, I think that our approach overall should be that if rules change such that they are more restrictive (like is proposed in this case), a ban that occurred previously would not be grounds for enforcement under the new rule - only a ban when the rule is specifically in place should count.

I do see your point regarding allowing flexibility at time of rule breach, James - I am leery of such flexibility in general because we have seen vagueness in the rules taken advantage of by previous moderators. In this case, right now, I don't have concerns, but I still can't help but feel that it will be in our long term best interests if we hammer out specific punishments for specific infractions.

OR (what I really want) we should instead *give* moderation the sort of flexibility you describe, but change the approach to moderation in general so that it is subject to review by others with the power to overturn their ruling. In your described scenario, I think it'd be appropriate to give mods the flexibility to do a 30 day temp ban + 6 month ban from privileged activities, but I'd like for that moderator's decision to be appealable to a (I have proposed) elected board of 2-3 players whose decision is final in the matter. This gives the flexibility you desire but also serves as a check on moderator discretion that I think we've learned is a good idea. But perhaps that's (still) a discussion for another day.

[Drax]

On Section 4, not sure if continent should have been retained or not. Probably not. Does current wording say no close proximity? If not think it should be.

[GreekIdiot]

re: James's and Zanz's points

There are 2 reasons why you'll get banned (at least since this). You disrespect players (and i don't mean sarcasm or bantering) in which case that's an immediate bye bye. Or you're a troll; you broke the game rules already 3 times (and got warned 3 times).

You get a 30-day ban first, whatever the reason, and then you get a permanent one if you do it again.

If you have 1 warning under your belt, it's probably cause you didn't know about it, 2 or 3 warnings should bar you from the candy for a time period cause you knew what you were doing. Or just 3 warnings, cause maybe the 2nd warning came on a bad and frustrating day or something.

So, my point is, if you have a 30-day ban in the record, you were either a shithead or a troll; why should it matter if you trolled CPs or 2A?

And I'm definitely in favour of the clean slate here.

[jamescfm]

On Section 4, not sure if continent should have been retained or not. Probably not. Does current wording say no close proximity? If not think it should be.

The decision to remove the continent rule is deliberate and is motivated by something Zanz referred to earlier. In many cases, there is no good reason why a player should not be permitted to operate accounts in two countries on the same continent.

I think I would agree with you about close proximity though. Perhaps section 10.4 could be rewritten to read:

4. Players are not permitted to operate two accounts in the same country and are expected to keep role-play with their two accounts separate at all times. As a result, players are not permitted to operate two accounts in neighbouring countries, or in two countries with a close historical or political connection.