War #10 - General Discussion

[Higurashi]

Yes, it's singular. "player"
Whether they're a cat or a person, there's only one of them.

[Aves]

If Bob and Joe have an account "BobJoe42" and Bob curses excessively in chat, BobJoe42 is banned from chat even if Joe didn't do anything wrong. If BobJoe42 joins War, why should they not be considered BobJoe42, and be forced to create "Bob4" and "Joe2?"

The singular applies to the entity.

[Solaris]

Perhaps adding this in writing to tournaments would help set a precedent.

It's effectively already there, with the no deck discussion rule, but I'd gladly bring up the possibility of a "no collaboration period" rule to math and Gin.

[Higurashi]

If Bob and Joe have an account "BobJoe42" and Bob curses excessively in chat, BobJoe42 is banned from chat even if Joe didn't do anything wrong. If BobJoe42 joins War, why should they not be considered BobJoe42, and be forced to create "Bob4" and "Joe2?"

The singular applies to the entity.

Yes and no. Two people can make two separate accounts on the same IP. This forces me to question them as to why they're sharing an IP since it means they might be one and the same person with two accounts. The most common reason is that they're using the same router on a typical school dorm configuration.

An account certainly contracts a ban, but so does the person. If they make a new account and they're found out, they're banned again for ban-evading. Player and person are the same thing, but account and person are not.

[worldwideweb3]

Perhaps adding this in writing to tournaments would help set a precedent.

It's effectively already there, with the no deck discussion rule, but I'd gladly bring up the possibility of a "no collaboration period" rule to math and Gin.

Oh it is? Then that rule has been broken down several times, just saying. I have even seen winners say that "I want to thank this player for helping me with decks" etc

[Aves]

If Bob and Joe have an account "BobJoe42" and Bob curses excessively in chat, BobJoe42 is banned from chat even if Joe didn't do anything wrong. If BobJoe42 joins War, why should they not be considered BobJoe42, and be forced to create "Bob4" and "Joe2?"

The singular applies to the entity.

Yes and no. Two people can make two separate accounts on the same IP. This forces me to question them as to why they're sharing an IP since it means they might be one and the same person with two accounts. The most common reason is that they're using the same router on a typical school dorm configuration.

An account certainly contracts a ban, but so does the person. If they make a new account and they're found out, they're banned again for ban-evading. Player and person are the same thing, but account and person are not.

Certainly, accounts and people are not the same thing, as one account can have more than one person. Both the account and the person(s) behind the account are banned, and that is not wrong. I do challenge that Player and person are the same thing. It is not clear to me that player does not refer to the account entity rather than to the person(s) behind the account entity.

[ARTHANASIOS]

Certainly, accounts and people are not the same thing, as one account can have more than one person.

And one person many accounts, just saying...

[Aves]

Certainly, accounts and people are not the same thing, as one account can have more than one person.

And one person many accounts, just saying...

It is explicitly established that one person having many accounts is against the rules, and alts can and have been banned.

[Higurashi]

Mkay, that's a semantic ambiguity that we can clarify in the rules for all official PvP. A player is, in the context of the rules, one person. One does not need an account to be a player.

As for this issue at hand, the WM's can act on things even if they're not covered by the written rules. This could also use some clarifying, as in the forum rules:
"Undefined: Obviously we can't anticipate every situation. For that reason, We reserve the right to remove any user at any time for any reason. If we think you're trying to manipulate the system, you'll be removed."

From the rules, this is currently covered by:

5. PENALTIES

Penalties are issued when a team somehow breaks the rules or disrupts War.

Because the bold part isn't clearly defined, it gives the WM's leeway. I would suggest the following edit:

"Penalties are normally issued when one or several team members break the rules or disrupt war. As written rules cannot cover all contingencies, Warmasters and Administrators reserve the right to issue penalties for any reason."

[Aves]

PvP being such an important part of the forum, I find it difficult to approve of that. It effectively bans from PvP any people who share an account. It is discrimination against people who like to play together with friends/family online. Does it matter if UTA ever shows his 5 year old (congratulations!) what a tourney looks like, or if serprex does all his gaming with his SO? While I doubt there's a significant minority of people who do share accounts, it's nevertheless a cumbersome restriction towards people like that which to me, doesn't mesh with the direction the community is going towards. We need to be more inclusive, not more restrictive. We will only lose people over this, and we will not gain any significant benefit. I respectfully dissent (not that my opinion has any weight, granted) from your ruling.

As for the clarification about disrupts war, I think it was implied anyways, but I don't have a problem with it. I do think that WMs should also reserve the right NOT to issue penalties for any reason, for example not catching a proper thread title until an hour after the match.

[Zawadx]

While the discussion surely helps, i believe the matter is more in WMs hand and should in future cases always stay there, because that's what allows for a maximum of flexibility.

Thing is, the issue involves more stuff than just war. So I think we need admin ruling on forum rules about sharing a forum account (accounting for cases like Higs stated about members with deleted accounts).

And if shared accounts are allowed (Which seems to be the truth by the current version of forum rules) how is serp's case anything beyond that?

[iancudorinmarian]

This discussion basically shows me which people care about having fun and which people care about enforcing strict rules as much as possible. Why do any of you even care if Kae helps serprex? He can do whatever he wants and nobody can stop him. He could say "I was joking", and none of you could possibly prove that Kae even exists.

He was sincere about the whole situation, but apparently, sincerity has to be punished.