8/18/2021 - Proposal for New Game & Community Rules

[Alex]

Hey everyone,

For the last month or so I've been working on drafting out a new set of game rules. There are a number of reasons for this, and here are the main ones:

• I want to move away from a "3 strikes and you're out" moderation policy where strikes never expire. I think it does not make much sense to treat all offenses with the same punishment, and adopting a more nuanced set of rules where different offenses have different punishments makes more sense to me and I think ought to be better for you all (the players.)
• I want to bring on some game moderators to help ease my workload for relatively simple moderation cases. Daily, we get people signing up with some variation of the name "hitler", a nazi flag, use of slurs or other offensive language, etc. that could be easily handled by another moderator. My hope is that by transitioning some of this workload off of myself it will free up more of my time to work on the development of new mechanics, content, and overall improvements for the game.
• I also wanted to outline a new set of community guidelines to be as transparent as possible about our moderation practices. For example, in the past we have stepped outside of what has happened in "official" P&W channels (in-game, this forum, and our official P&W Discord server) to take moderation action against players. Examples of cases like these are the Guinea Pig Whaling Corps / NPO ordeal, previous instances of players trading real-life money for in-game money, instances of doxxing and sharing of other players' personal information and photos, instances of players engaging in predatory behavior toward other players, etc. This new draft of the rules includes a "Community Rules" section, which is broadly intended to serve as codified and transparent guidelines for how we expect members of our community to behave, and in what types of situations I might consider actions and evidence occurring outside of official P&W channels. Please note that this is not a big shift in moderation practices; I have essentially already been doing this for years in very limited, specific, and extraordinary circumstances, and that by including this in the rules I am only intending to be more open and transparent about what is happening.

I don't think that you will find anything that new or surprising in the content of the new rules. I did try to be more clear and specific about certain things, but largely they are a combination of the existing Game Rules and the Forum Rules integrated together comprehensively.

What Would Change in the New Rules Compared to the Current Rules?

The biggest change is to the actual moderation system itself. Instead of a "3 strikes and you're out" policy, I assigned a set of "Moderation Points" to each rule offense. Instead of going with a specific amount for any given offense, which does not leave much room for nuance, I have instead outlined a range of points to be issued at the moderator's discretion. I believe this is important; for example I hope that we can all agree that an otherwise innocuous nation with a Nazi flag is not behaving as badly as an all-out white supremacist nation showcasing the Nazi flag, Hitler, etc. and should not be punished equally under our "no Nazism" rule.

Each rule violation also includes a set expiration time. This means that you are not stuck with your moderation points forever. I know there are players that have strikes that are 3, 4, or even 5 years old now that they would like to see removed from their accounts. I agree that people can change, and by building in expiration times, which are different and related to the severity of the offense, we can accommodate for this better in this new proposed system.

A Note About In-Game Moderators

Something else important that I'd like to note is that the involvement of any additional in-game moderators is going to come with heavy supervision, logging of all actions taken (so any abuse can be caught and corrected after the fact if it does occur), along with a requirement that at least 2 moderators approve all moderation actions being taken which will help eliminate any individual biases. I have not gotten very far into looking at bringing on in-game moderators yet as I wanted to establish a framework of new rules to work with first.

Similar to the forum moderators, in-game mods would remain anonymous. This is to prevent other players or alliances taking in-game action against the mods for a decision that they disagree with. We have a long history now of this type of practice with forum moderation, and it has gone very well over the last several years, and I expect that would continue in-game. The only exception here would be that the player Dr. Rush, who is our Discord Team Lead, would be a public semi-mod. The reason for this is that he has access to our Discord support tickets and could serve as a really useful liaison to the in-game moderators about anything reported via Discord. But Dr. Rush would not be participating in any major game moderation decisions.

Appeals

I did include this explicitly in the draft of the new rules, but essentially if a player takes issue with any in-game moderator decision they would be able to appeal it to me.

What Now? Where Are the Proposed New Rules?

Thank you for reading this far. I hope that the above context will help clear up any misconceptions about this proposal. At this point, these rules are not going into effect, I am just opening them up for public feedback. I know that in the past couple of weeks people have leaked these rules and made all sorts of wild claims about how everything is going to change for the worse. I can assure you that that is not the case. However, I do want to take a thoughtful approach and see if there is anything that I am missing in these rules, as well as learn more about what the general community consensus is on these rules.

With all that said, you can read the draft I wrote of the new rules here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/149Owwee_ntvphR0j60BLl7vTVKvG1XRNP1VR6c1Oa7E/edit?usp=sharing

Please ask any questions you have or any feedback you have here in this thread. Thank you for your time and your consideration.

 

[Somebody738383939]

May i ask how would the in game moderators be picked eg will applications go up or would some discord or forum mods be given the opportunity?

[Wubba]

6 minutes ago, Alex said:

Please note that this is not a big shift in moderation practices; I have essentially already been doing this for years in very limited, specific, and extraordinary circumstances, and that by including this in the rules I am only intending to be more open and transparent about what is happening.

 You haven't been doing this for years. Whenever someone made a complaint about discord you essentially said let discord handle it. Now you actively ban people in game for actions on discord. This is a major change. Stop pretending it's not, people are watching. 

[Alex]

2 minutes ago, Somebody738383939 said:

May i ask how would the in game moderators be picked eg will applications go up or would some discord or forum mods be given the opportunity?

To begin with, I would select one or two players from existing moderation teams that I know well and trust. Assuming that goes well without any issues, eventually I would expand to opening up some "junior moderator" roles where new moderators could be brought on with supervision from the experienced moderators and help spread/lighten the workload. At that point, I would open up a public application for the "junior" moderators.

[BelgiumFury]

How long would these bans last for?
Would they be permanent (i personally believe that is a bit harsh, a lot of young people play this game, change happens a lot) or would it depend on the expiration of the points you have?

Personally I would prefer the second option (or another non permanent solution).

Assuming bans are not permanent, is there a way to "ban" people without deleting their nation so they can come back once they had time to think about their actions and it's consequences?

 

[Alex]

4 minutes ago, Wubba said:

 You haven't been doing this for years. Whenever someone made a complaint about discord you essentially said let discord handle it. Now you actively ban people in game for actions on discord. This is a major change. Stop pretending it's not, people are watching. 

There are two recent, limited cases that I can think of which got a lot of attention in the community where I banned a player in-game for displaying a pattern of seriously abusive and inappropriate behavior via Discord, in one case in particular the banned player was sharing the real life name, social media accounts, and real life images of another player.

However, these are not the only times this has happened. I have been taking action against some other few predators within the community in the past that were less known and did not make a big fuss when they got banned.

My goal is not to take action against anyone who says a swear word in a private Discord server or DM. The new rules outline this, but essentially only in really unique and extraordinary circumstances would I take action against a player in-game for behavior happening via these channels.

It's also worth pointing out that I am very skeptical of any evidence that I can't authenticate, e.g. Discord screenshots. To take action against someone in-game for something occurring on Discord, I would need really sufficient proof (e.g. could be me joining the Discord server and personally validating the messages, checking that the Discord account does match the user in-game, etc.)

[Kuuhaku]

Just a suggestion but in light of recent event that just happened last day change, wouldn't it be appropriate to put a rule against knowingly abusing a bug? It might be fuzzy to draw the line where someone does it knowingly or not, but one of the easiest ways of having it known might be having a "known glitches/bugs report" in changelogs or as a monthly thing.

 

Idk just something I thought in the past 3 minutes but the MAP issue has been a bother for the last 3 global wars or even longer 

[BrythonLexi]

I do have concerns about the lax amount of moderation points given to sexist/racist comments - where even the worst case is worth half of what a ban would be.

Secondarily, I am worried about N azi-like beliefs that would be excused just for not being NSDAP-themed - like, while you do have a ban on the Confederacy in place (which is largely an American thing), it's easy for crypto-fascist themes and icons like "Kekistan" to easily pass through, because there is no Kekistan hate group.

[Wubba]

19 minutes ago, Alex said:

Stuff

 

[BelgiumFury]

8 minutes ago, BrythonLexi said:

I do have concerns about the lax amount of moderation points given to sexist/racist comments - where even the worst case is worth half of what a ban would be.

Secondarily, I am worried about N azi-like beliefs that would be excused just for not being NSDAP-themed - like, while you do have a ban on the Confederacy in place (which is largely an American thing), it's easy for crypto-fascist themes and icons like "Kekistan" to easily pass through, because there is no Kekistan hate group.

I wish to note a very sizable minority (or even small majority) who used the kekistani flag were not nazis at all. 
And the problem with crypto fashist is that without actually talking to them it's hard to discern them.

Let's keep caution and ban too few over too many people.

[BrythonLexi]

Just now, BelgiumFury said:

I wish to note a very sizable minority (or even small majority) who used the kekistani flag were not nazis at all. 
And the problem with crypto fashist is that without actually talking to them it's hard to discern them.

Let's keep caution and ban too few over too many people.

That makes sense, but given the whole thing with banning the Confederacy, you're effectively banning everyone who uses the Dixie flag (which is a large porportion of the American South, and a fair amount of even Northern conservatives).

That, and I apologise if i'm a bit too cautious - given the extreme transphobia in parts of the P&W community.  Seeing no rules on homophobia or transphobia is also alarming.

Either way, there is a huge white supremacy problem on this website, that @Zei-Sakura Alsainn showed and got attacked for.

[JadenStar10]

I dont see why you think you should be able to use your game as leverage against actions done in third party applications that have moderators of their own and who you have no real jurisdiction over. Discord can ban these people or alternatively people can block these people, this is the equivalent of Kevin from Cyber Nations banning me if I did something he didn't like in Politics & War.

Edited August 18, 2021 by Suyash Adhikari

[BelgiumFury]

4 minutes ago, BrythonLexi said:

That makes sense, but given the whole thing with banning the Confederacy, you're effectively banning everyone who uses the Dixie flag (which is a large porportion of the American South, and a fair amount of even Northern conservatives).

That, and I apologise if i'm a bit too cautious - given the extreme transphobia in parts of the P&W community.  Seeing no rules on homophobia or transphobia is also alarming.

I cant comment on the confederate flag because i know too little of the nuances, i do know them of kekistan tho that is why i commented on that specific one. I prefer the safety of not banning innocent people. 

I'd say rules against homophobia are indeed in place too.

[JadenStar10]

You have sharing private information/doxxing down twice.

[namukara]

It is highly disingenuous to suggest that you have been taking into account things that happened out of official game channels when dishing out punishments ingame for a number of years. Even the examples you gave, the GPWC cheating scandal and the trading of ingame resources for things with rl value are false comparisons as they directly affect the game. Somebody saying a nasty thing on a discord server which happens to be populated largely by players of this game does not have the same impact.

Unless you have witnessed the interactions that prompt moderator action yourself, I fail to understand how the reason that you gave to me in an email dated 13 March 2019 does not apply. Although you have this email in your sent folder, I will quote it for the benefit of users who do not

Unfortunately, there's probably not anything I can do to help you, assuming that these Discord messages occurred outside of the official Politics & War Discord server. We don't moderate what happens outside of our official channels (the game itself, the official Discord server, and the game forum) because we have no way to identify individuals outside of these media. Anyone could pretend to be someone else and send messages in order to get the person they're pretending to be in trouble or banned, which is why we don't moderate outside of official channels to discourage that behavior.

 

This email was sent in response to a report I submitted that same day regarding toxic OOC behavior from a leading member of a now-dissolved alliance not limited to the longstanding bullying of certain users including myself. Although, I should hope understandably, I was quite annoyed by your response to my report at the time moderating several servers since that point has taught me that this was the most sensible course of action for you to take.

Screenshots and copy-pastes can be edited very easily. Discord accounts can be hacked and permissions can be given wrongly by lax server moderators, and thus the quality of the evidence provided from messages which pertain to come from this communication method is highly suspect. Incidentally, I am Borg, I've lost access to my account and I can send you discord screenshots to prove it, please send me my alliances offshore immediately. I'm also Valk if the street doesn't have quite enough in the bank, just let me get my friend to boot up his image editor again.

I suspect that the reason I'm not on my way to city 40 right now is because you are not stupid and as much as I can create discord accounts claiming to be any number of alliance leaders and can get them okayed by various friends it does not prove that I am them. Likewise if I wished to create a discord account, give it the name of a high-profile member of the community, go join a major alliance and start spamming porn images around you should disregard it as it's obviously a troll, right?

This is a game which creates discord coders and image editors. It's a game that breeds the sort of skillset that would enable a user to create the illusion of genuine comments while they were nothing of the sort. If you are seriously set on the path of allowing discord screenshots, even in servers you're not in to be taken as hard and fast evidence of rulebreaking then please accept that you are also happy to open the door to report abuse on a massive scale; because, when OOC toxicity reaches the levels we have seen in this game in recent years I know that is what will happen.

Thanks for listening to my ted talk; I hope something productive will come from it and that you'll reconsider this dangerous rules change.

[im317]

please add/include not being able to trade in game stuff for stuff from other games. i know it should obviously be covered by what is already in place but making it clear would help. in the past there have been instances of people doing something that was clearly against the spirit and general wording of the rules but as it was not explicitly against the rules those people were able to get away with little to no consequences.

[Ayayay]

55 minutes ago, BrythonLexi said:

That makes sense, but given the whole thing with banning the Confederacy, you're effectively banning everyone who uses the Dixie flag (which is a large porportion of the American South, and a fair amount of even Northern conservatives).

"The Dixie flag" that most people wave around is Lee's battle flag, not the flag of the Confederacy, and only came into popular use during the civil rights movement by avowed segregationists and the KKK themselves. The Confederate traitors killed half a million Americans so I fail to see why any patriotic American website would ever consider hosting that content anyways.

[BrythonLexi]

4 minutes ago, Malal said:

"The Dixie flag" that most people wave around is Lee's battle flag, not the flag of the Confederacy, and only came into popular use during the civil rights movement by avowed segregationists and the KKK themselves. The Confederate traitors killed half a million Americans so I fail to see why any patriotic American website would ever consider hosting that content anyways.

Yeah; i'm not arguing they should be allowed.  But what I am saying is that the banning of the Confederate flag should mean limiting similar symbols.  Like, not all the flags seen at the Jan. 6th Insurrection should be banned but absolutely used as a vague idea of what similarly-minded people use to get around Dixie / Confederate / N azi flag bans.  But of course, caution should be used - while lots of Wehraboos use the flag of the German Empire, i'd still be a bit sus on banned the German Empire's flag on P&W.

I'd probably say a good limit that would include Confederate flags and non-NSDAP fascism would be secessionist attempts, and symbols of N azi-like parties such as the Golden Dawn (Greece)

Edited August 18, 2021 by BrythonLexi

[namukara]

9 minutes ago, Malal said:

"The Dixie flag" that most people wave around is Lee's battle flag, not the flag of the Confederacy, and only came into popular use during the civil rights movement by avowed segregationists and the KKK themselves. The Confederate traitors killed half a million Americans so I fail to see why any patriotic American website would ever consider hosting that content anyways.

We're on a patriotic american website now? Damn

[BelgiumFury]

12 minutes ago, BrythonLexi said:

I'd probably say a good limit that would include Confederate flags and non-NSDAP fascism would be secessionist attempts, and symbols of N azi-like parties such as the Golden Dawn (Greece)

Maybe but you'd also have to ban a lot of catalan flags, and scot flags who are very much not fashist.

[BrythonLexi]

1 minute ago, BelgiumFury said:

Maybe but you'd also have to ban a lot of catalan flags, and scot flags who are very much not fashist.

True... not sure how to justify Confederate flags being banned then aside as a hate symbol in of itself on par with the N azis. Even then, you'd have to include a lot of flags and symbols (prob using the ADL hate symbol list as reference) that half this game would NPO-style delete over being banned.  I mean, remember when Afrika Korps was a thing in this game?

Edited August 18, 2021 by BrythonLexi

[ChrisNorcras]

2 hours ago, Alex said:

• I also wanted to outline a new set of community guidelines to be as transparent as possible about our moderation practices. For example, in the past we have stepped outside of what has happened in "official" P&W channels (in-game, this forum, and our official P&W Discord server) to take moderation action against players. Examples of cases like these are the Guinea Pig Whaling Corps / NPO ordeal, previous instances of players trading real-life money for in-game money, instances of doxxing and sharing of other players' personal information and photos, instances of players engaging in predatory behavior toward other players, etc. This new draft of the rules includes a "Community Rules" section, which is broadly intended to serve as codified and transparent guidelines for how we expect members of our community to behave, and in what types of situations I might consider actions and evidence occurring outside of official P&W channels. Please note that this is not a big shift in moderation practices; I have essentially already been doing this for years in very limited, specific, and extraordinary circumstances, and that by including this in the rules I am only intending to be more open and transparent about what is happening.

 

While I agree with most rule updates, I must firmly and vehemently stand against this particular clause. Though I understand the intent of the rule, the fact that it amounts to overreach is obvious to almost anyone who reads the proposed changes.

I personally would advise anyone with a PnW related Discord server to enhance their own moderation, add clauses to their rules disallowing the use of their Discord servers for this particular "moderation" purpose, as well as making sure that public channels are basically locked down and that content is available only to those approved by the staff of the Discord server. Attempts to circumvent and use privately-owned Discord servers for the purpose of moderation should result in a permanent ban to those who attempt it.

In simple, and the kindest English I can manage at the moment, "Stay in your lane, sir."

[Cynder]

Pretty good, I like it so far, I don't think we need a static comprehensive set of guidelines for every circumstance out there, but I think it's a lot better than the way things were for years.

There's a couple of things I like to address, personally I think punishment for predatory behavior should never expire, I don't think that needs much explaining.

The second thing is that we kinda need light shed on transphobia and homophobia, I think the severity of the punishment of such acts should be on par with sexism and racism but that's just me. There's a few transgendered and gay folk here who would probably appreciate knowing they're protected, it may even welcome new players. I know we all have differing opinions on the matter and I respect that, but they're people too and there are indeed serious issues surrounding that sort of thing.

[BrythonLexi]

6 minutes ago, Cynder said:

The second thing is that we kinda need light shed on transphobia and homophobia, I think the severity of the punishment of such acts should be on par with sexism and racism but that's just me. There's a few transgendered and gay folk here who would probably appreciate knowing they're protected, it may even welcome new players. I know we all have differing opinions on the matter and I respect that, but they're people too and there are indeed serious issues surrounding that sort of thing.

Yeah, it honestly alarms me a bit that there is no homophobia/transphobia rule in the draft.  On quite a few P&W servers there is rampant bigotry against gay and trans people - like with people being deadnamed or the use of "traps" as a slur

[BelgiumFury]

22 minutes ago, BrythonLexi said:

Yeah, it honestly alarms me a bit that there is no homophobia/transphobia rule in the draft.  On quite a few P&W servers there is rampant bigotry against gay and trans people - like with people being deadnamed or the use of "traps" as a slur

Wouldn't solve that situation though.
I do agree homophobia should probably be in there, but they will still be rampant whereever.

Alex made it quite clear that he would not moderate stuff like that in other's peoples discord from the document i just read. (Although it would ofcourse help on the forums, in game and the official discord). 
 

Edited August 19, 2021 by BelgiumFury