Proposed update to section 10 of the Game Rules

[jamescfm]

Regarding "a good record in terms of respecting the Game Rules", I am going to remove this wording from the proposal. For the reasons discussed above, I think this would create undesirable ambiguity and could be abused to deny second account requests arbitrarily. Moderators would still be able to impose restrictions on players operating a second account where there is legitimate reason to do so; however, this should be explicitly communicated to the particular player in advance.

Given there has been no further comment on the issue of close proximity between countries, I am going to proceed with the modified version of section 10.4. Please see below for the full updated proposal, with the original proposal for comparative purposes. I have updated my original post too.

ORIGINAL 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, and a good record in terms of respecting the Game Rules.

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 second accounts in the same country as their primary account. As a general rule, players should not create second accounts in countries that have a close historical or political connection to the country of their primary account. Players should keep role-play with their second accounts separate from role-play with their primary accounts at all times.

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.

NEW 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.

[Mbites]

I oppose point 5 in general, if a player's qualities are to be judged the only thing that matters is if they're following the general behavioural rules outlined in the game rules. Formally introducing "quality" of rp is a precedent which I personally find appalling, this isnt some elitist circlejerk, players should largely be left to their own devices to produce creative situations and tell stories.

If introduced: Quality itself is a vague term which would need to be defined in rigorous detail.

Who is supposed to judge this?
Moderation? That sounds like too much work for little or rather no gain.

The RPC? No thank you. The RPC should guide new players in regards to roleplay and give advice on certain aspects of roleplay if asked. Their role already is, in my opinion, blown out of proportion at this point as seen by the current 'debate' happening in the Forum based countries.

On 7:
24 hours is a little harsh, most of us have busy lifes aside of Particracy and if there is an occasion that leads the player to be offline for a day or maybe more (field-trip e.x), we should not sanction them for that.

[jamescfm]

I oppose point 5 in general, if a player's qualities are to be judged the only thing that matters is if they're following the general behavioural rules outlined in the game rules. Formally introducing "quality" of rp is a precedent which I personally find appalling, this isnt some elitist circlejerk, players should largely be left to their own devices to produce creative situations and tell stories.

If introduced: Quality itself is a vague term which would need to be defined in rigorous detail.

Who is supposed to judge this?
Moderation? That sounds like too much work for little or rather no gain.

The RPC? No thank you. The RPC should guide new players in regards to roleplay and give advice on certain aspects of roleplay if asked. Their role already is, in my opinion, blown out of proportion at this point as seen by the current 'debate' happening in the Forum based countries.

Though I understand your concern, there must be a way to distinguish quality role-play from bad role-play. Imagine a player who produces dozens of posts that are less than 100 words long and written in broken English without any punctuation. I think it would be wrong and damaging for the game to allow this player to operate a second account. The aim is not to favour any particular style of role-play though. Even if you just compare the members of the Moderation team, you will realise we all role-play differently.

If you have any suggestions about how we might better phrase this to make the distinction clear, that would be appreciated.

On 7:
24 hours is a little harsh, most of us have busy lifes aside of Particracy and if there is an occasion that leads the player to be offline for a day or maybe more (field-trip e.x), we should not sanction them for that.

The twenty-four hour period is after a player's account has been inactivated, which happens after four days without logging in. For the permission to be withdrawn, a player would need to be inactivate for a total of five days.

[Mbites]

I oppose point 5 in general, if a player's qualities are to be judged the only thing that matters is if they're following the general behavioural rules outlined in the game rules. Formally introducing "quality" of rp is a precedent which I personally find appalling, this isnt some elitist circlejerk, players should largely be left to their own devices to produce creative situations and tell stories.

If introduced: Quality itself is a vague term which would need to be defined in rigorous detail.

Who is supposed to judge this?
Moderation? That sounds like too much work for little or rather no gain.

The RPC? No thank you. The RPC should guide new players in regards to roleplay and give advice on certain aspects of roleplay if asked. Their role already is, in my opinion, blown out of proportion at this point as seen by the current 'debate' happening in the Forum based countries.

Though I understand your concern, there must be a way to distinguish quality role-play from bad role-play. Imagine a player who produces dozens of posts that are less than 100 words long and written in broken English without any punctuation. I think it would be wrong and damaging for the game to allow this player to operate a second account. The aim is not to favour any particular style of role-play though. Even if you just compare the members of the Moderation team, you will realise we all role-play differently.

If you have any suggestions about how we might better phrase this to make the distinction clear, that would be appreciated.

On 7:
24 hours is a little harsh, most of us have busy lifes aside of Particracy and if there is an occasion that leads the player to be offline for a day or maybe more (field-trip e.x), we should not sanction them for that.

The twenty-four hour period is after a player's account has been inactivated, which happens after four days without logging in. For the permission to be withdrawn, a player would need to be inactivate for a total of five days.

Right, while I still think that this sort of discrimination should not occur due to a personal laissez-faire attitude and the belief that people can grow into better roleplayer's, if implemented the wording of the rule should be very casuistic and not intransparently just use the word "quality." It should very directly describe this specific case.

On the second point:
Yeah nevermind, thats right, 7. is fair. Haven't thought that one completely through, sorry about that

[Luis1p]

I oppose point 5 in general, if a player's qualities are to be judged the only thing that matters is if they're following the general behavioural rules outlined in the game rules. Formally introducing "quality" of rp is a precedent which I personally find appalling, this isnt some elitist circlejerk, players should largely be left to their own devices to produce creative situations and tell stories.

If introduced: Quality itself is a vague term which would need to be defined in rigorous detail.

Who is supposed to judge this?
Moderation? That sounds like too much work for little or rather no gain.

The RPC? No thank you. The RPC should guide new players in regards to roleplay and give advice on certain aspects of roleplay if asked. Their role already is, in my opinion, blown out of proportion at this point as seen by the current 'debate' happening in the Forum based countries.

Though I understand your concern, there must be a way to distinguish quality role-play from bad role-play. Imagine a player who produces dozens of posts that are less than 100 words long and written in broken English without any punctuation. I think it would be wrong and damaging for the game to allow this player to operate a second account. The aim is not to favour any particular style of role-play though. Even if you just compare the members of the Moderation team, you will realise we all role-play differently.

If you have any suggestions about how we might better phrase this to make the distinction clear, that would be appreciated.

On 7:
24 hours is a little harsh, most of us have busy lifes aside of Particracy and if there is an occasion that leads the player to be offline for a day or maybe more (field-trip e.x), we should not sanction them for that.

The twenty-four hour period is after a player's account has been inactivated, which happens after four days without logging in. For the permission to be withdrawn, a player would need to be inactivate for a total of five days.

Right, while I still think that this sort of discrimination should not occur due to a personal laissez-faire attitude and the belief that people can grow into better roleplayer's, if implemented the wording of the rule should be very casuistic and not intransparently just use the word "quality." It should very directly describe this specific case.

On the second point:
Yeah nevermind, thats right, 7. is fair. Haven't thought that one completely through, sorry about that

Totally agree with the conversation going on here. I think we're leaning towards having some sort of "standard" when it comes to RP, instead of using the word quality--or having to do with quality.

We do need to make a distinction between what is generally poor RP (see what James mentioned) and what RP is ok. Again, I think we just need like a base standard of RP.

[Zanz]

Totally agree with the conversation going on here. I think we're leaning towards having some sort of "standard" when it comes to RP, instead of using the word quality--or having to do with quality.

We do need to make a distinction between what is generally poor RP (see what James mentioned) and what RP is ok. Again, I think we just need like a base standard of RP.

This is good to hear, though I think it deserves its own separate conversation, as I envision such a standard being used for other areas besides just Section 10 (e.g. it should also be used when evaluating requests for FBC control, for instance - any 'privileged activity').

Briefly, some immediate thoughts on what constitutes the sort of RP I think we would want evidence of before granting a 'privileged activity':

• Respect for roleplayed history in a given nation (players who have not demonstrated an ability and willingness to read through and engage with existing RP for a nation should not be given the benefit of the doubt in a second nation / FBC)
• Ability to plan (and execute the plan!) RPs with other players (players who have shown an unwillingness to work with other players should not be doing privileged activities)
• Ability to roleplay in diverse situations (no two nations are the same, so players who have not demonstrated an ability to meaningfully distinguish roleplay in different situations should be encouraged to practice doing that more before being allowed privileged activities)

[Mbites]

Totally agree with the conversation going on here. I think we're leaning towards having some sort of "standard" when it comes to RP, instead of using the word quality--or having to do with quality.

We do need to make a distinction between what is generally poor RP (see what James mentioned) and what RP is ok. Again, I think we just need like a base standard of RP.

This is good to hear, though I think it deserves its own separate conversation, as I envision such a standard being used for other areas besides just Section 10 (e.g. it should also be used when evaluating requests for FBC control, for instance - any 'privileged activity').

Briefly, some immediate thoughts on what constitutes the sort of RP I think we would want evidence of before granting a 'privileged activity':

• Respect for roleplayed history in a given nation (players who have not demonstrated an ability and willingness to read through and engage with existing RP for a nation should not be given the benefit of the doubt in a second nation / FBC)
• Ability to plan (and execute the plan!) RPs with other players (players who have shown an unwillingness to work with other players should not be doing privileged activities)
• Ability to roleplay in diverse situations (no two nations are the same, so players who have not demonstrated an ability to meaningfully distinguish roleplay in different situations should be encouraged to practice doing that more before being allowed privileged activities)

If this is the outline of what the "standard" is going to look like, I'd personally be okay with it. When it comes to anything in regards to language (aside from it being understandable and not completely broken), format and the contents of rp-posts should be absolutely protected from this infringement.
Also, if this is actually going to be introduced, whoever would be responsible should be mandated to debate and reason their evaluations of what fulfills the standard under scrutinity of the general public playerbase meaning public (maybe write-restricted) threads. To ensure fairness and curb elitist thought which is festering in some circles of this community.

[jamescfm]

The feedback period for this proposed update is set to end tomorrow. Given the discussion here is ongoing, I am extending this by a week. The feedback period will now end no earlier than the end of the day 19 April 2024.

[GreekIdiot]

I don't disagree with the points here, either. I mean in terms of a second account or an FBC, it's supposed to help generate more RP opportunities for the community itself. So like Zanz said, 1) respect of continuity, 2) playing with others (what I call multiplayer mode) and 3) diversity lgtm.

[jamescfm]

Apologies for the delay in providing an update here. I am extending the feedback period by an additional two weeks.