Alliance Accountability

[Cooper_]

It seems right now that the only moderation systems we have are, in large effect, only effective against individual nations as opposed to the alliances that permit or ever enforce these actions.  The suggestion I is twofold, and the aim is to add another layer to the moderation system that perhaps, in the long-term, will promote self-moderation among alliances to avoid interaction with such a moderation system (re: Foucault's Panopticon).

 

 

The idea is twofold:

1. Create a point system that is of a similar kind as the current warning point and nation strike systems.  

        a. Each time a nation is issued a warning point or nation strike (for specified reasons below), the nation's alliance will also receive a point.  

        b. Alliances that reach a point threshold of 5 points and then further checkpoints afterwards will start to experience consequences such as temporary blacklistings for new applicants, decreases in tax revenues/nation revenues/color bonuses, advertising taken down, etc.

        c. The point/strike total of an alliance will decrease at a rate of 1 point per 3 months.

 

2. The point system will be constructed to specifically target cheating and intolerance

        a. Any time a nation is given a strike/warning point for hateful and offensive behavior, the alliance will also receive a point.  This is to act as an incentive for alliances to self-monitor their members, and of course such actions would be determined under the discretion of the moderators (although it would be helpful to have some objective criteria to base those decisions).  

        b. Any time a nation is caught intentional cheating within a reasonable doubt and is given a nation strike/banned, the alliance shall also receive a point.  Again, the involvement and knowledge of the alliance as a whole would be determined by the moderators/administration.

        c. Penalties could be adjusted if actions were particularly heinous or openly supported by the alliance.

 

*Note* that all quantities of point totals and potential penalties are arbitrarily chosen and easily subject to change.

 

 

The rationale here is because of recent events that have occurred with cheating.  To name some recent scandals, we saw nefarious activities with Nova, GOB, and AK in the context of breaking the rules or cheating.  If we made it an alliance's business to not get involved with such things, then there would be a powerful motivator for alliances to not engage in such activities, especially given the lack of progress we've had on actually fixing the problems (although we do appreciate the macro).

Second, some of our members, in the past, have been targeted for their ethnicity, race, gender, and other identity features.  I'm not asking everyone to be PC, but rather to not engage in openly hateful speech that is causing some people to leave the game.  We are all human beings with feelings and emotions, and when we are attacked for our race or our religion beyond the scope of a joke, it is time to say that's enough.  I'm hoping that a system like this can reduce these forms of OOC attacks and make Orbis a safer place for everyone to be themselves.  And this isn't to say that we should censor anyone rather that we should all be our own filters, and hopefully this system or something similar wouldn't ever have to be used.

Hopefully, we can at least agree on this point even if our IC politics is utterly screwed up.

[Edward I]

It's a creative idea, but I doubt it would work or go over very well. There's a lot of ill-defined terminology in there - "intentional" cheating, "particularly heinous", "supported" by an alliance - that would make this hard to moderate, which would only compound the existing problem with inconsistent, opaque and seemingly arbitrary moderation practices. I doubt giving the moderators an even larger portfolio and relying on their discretion even more would end well.

This also runs into the usual problem with trying to regulate alliances: there are no restrictions on making, joining or leaving them. I doubt this would further disincentivize cheating so much as it would incentivize moving the cheating to smaller, lesser-known alliances. This would also create perverse incentives for alliance membership practices: big alliances are more likely to be hurt by this since they have more members (and thus more potential cheaters) and because they accept lots of new members whose histories and integrity are unknown; cheaters could change alliances after getting a strike, thus either evading the penalties themselves or forcing their bad behavior to be double-penalized (and raising another sticky moderation question, since most alliances protect their applicants, but cheaters could apply at will and thus receive at least temporary protection); and alliances could create or move to new affiliations altogether if the penalties were ever onerous enough to matter.

[Guest Elijah Mikaelson]

tho this would work in most games, the issue with PnW is the fact the rules and guidelines are so open, such as if you place 1 billion in a alliance bank for safe keeping, take it out and for whatever reason need to enter VM, if you still have that 1 billion it will be deemed "hiding an alliance bank" punishable by a warning, it does not matter if you own the money or not the fact it came from an alliance bank means you can not enter VM, as I ask and no time frame was given this will mean forever. 

[Shadowthrone]

Or you know I could join an alliance with the intent of getting them negatived points, and have a bunch of people doing it, and it'd be difficult to moderate. While creative, it just has too many ways by which it could be misused imho. 

[Noctis Anarch Caelum]

This sounds terrible actually. (More people weaponizing mods to report the most minor stuff)

Edit: Not sure how I ended up in an old thread, although my bad.

Edited November 28, 2019 by Noctis Anarch Caelum