For those who might not be on Discord, this is what this post is referring to
Hi! I have a few questions / requests for clarification or rewording about the rule changes made to section 5d of the rules and hoped you guys can help clear them up.
Questions:
- Why was this announced on the Discord but nowhere on the forum? There are many users active on the forum who are not also on the Discord - do we assume that all users will re-read the rules each day to ensure they're compliant with new rules that have been implemented without their knowledge?
- Was there any consideration given to allowing the community to comment on these changes before they were implemented? I have several thoughts (see below) and this might have been more smoothly implemented if others were given the chance to comment.
Suggestions/Specific questions about the rule changes
Section 5 d I wrote:I. they have the log-in-bug;
Can we clarify what the "log-in-bug" is in the text of this line? If a user has not encountered it before, they might not know what this means. Could we just say "they have the log-in-bug (their "Last Recorded Activity" says "Not recorded") [that's how this manifests, right?]
Related - if a user is in this situation, they'll just need to create a new party, right? Should we state that in the rules, just to save Moderation time? I care less about this, it'd be more an easier way for you guys to preempt problems.
More important related - The rules in Section 5 A, B, and C don't ever actually point out that the log-in-bug is grounds for inactivation. Presumably if it's grounds for not reactivating, and given that we're now codifying that in section 5 D, we should probably put it somewhere in 5 A, B, or C?
Section 5 d II wrote:II. are in breach of the rules;
I have no issues with this one, think it's a good rule.
Section 5 d III wrote:III. they have been inactivated as either a “party-sitter”, a multi or for using proxy IP addresses three or more times total;
This one's got problems.
- Do we actually tell people they're being inactivated as a "party-sitter"? How do I know that that's why my party was inactivated and therefore that's why I'm being prevented from reactivation?
- Same question re: multis as I asked about party sitters
- Can we not only list "proxy IP addresses" but also "Tor or other similar sites"? Something like "[...] or for using proxy IP addresses, Tor, or other similar means which mask IP address, in violation of Section 2 a ii."? This would make it clear exactly the sort of behavior that is not allowed. (Could we also update Section 2 a ii to specifically mention that Tor is not OK?)
- How did we land on "three or more times total"? Multi-ing and using proxies are really annoying infractions that you have to specifically be trying to circumvent the rules to be inactivated for - these are the sorts of things that warrant a one-strike-you're-out approach in my opinion.
Section 5 d IV wrote:IV. if they have been inactivated on the grounds of rules 5.c.ii to 5.c.iii three or more times in total.
Isn't the 5.c.iii section of this redundant with the rule laid out in 5.d.iii above? Couldn't we just include in 5.d.iii that violating 5.c.ii is also part of the three strikes rule?
Section 5 d V wrote:V. if they have been inactive without clear intent of being active in the past
What does "without clear intent of being active in the past" mean? I have no clue what this rule is trying to do, and I worry that it essentially ends up being really nit-pickable... How do mods know the "intent" of any player? Can we just reword it as "The Moderation reserves the right to not reactivate anyone for any reason at their discretion"? That's a more honest wording of what you're saying, as far as I can tell.