Decision: Stricter Moderation for Alts

[RZZZA]

Hi all, due to yesterdays board troubles my revised proposal concering alt accounts was erased, so here I am rewriting it. The previous thread has been closed for a fresh new thread.

Taking in peoples advice from the last thread, I gather that TWC is unwilling and unable to ban people from creating alt accounts outright so this proposal is a compromise that will hopefully still please both sides. Since alt accounts mainly cause trouble in the CC, this will be aimed more at them. I believe that the rules we have now are sufficient, all we need to do is clarify them a bit and add a couple of specific clauses pertaining to alt accounts that will act as a guideline for future moderators and as a rallying point for the rest of TWC. The rules concerning trolling read as such

Trolling (Inciting Flames)

Posts intended solely to annoy and/or offend other posters by going against the clear nature of a board or topic are not allowed. This includes, but is not limited to:

* Provoking other users to respond with flames
* Provoking fans of a particular system or game, especially on boards dedicated to that system or game
* Making misleading topic titles
* Asking obviously useless questions
* Posting false information as fact

Lets add a bulletpoint to that:

• Accounts created for the purpose of parodying, satirizing, stereotyping and/or harassing forum groups or members

The rules concerning Disruptive posting read as such

Disruptive Posting

Posts that disrupt the message boards for other users, intentional or not, are prohibited. This includes, but is not limited, to:

* Message posts or topic titles that force browsers to scroll horizontally
* Large blank or content-free posts
* Bumping old or "dead" topics without a reasonable cause
* Posting multiple identical or near-identical messages or topics, including "fad" topics
* Topic titles or posts consisting of all or mostly capital letters (Images cannot be larger than 600 pixels wide).
* Intentionally hard-to-read posts (i.e. using all, mostly, or alternating capital letters; using no spaces, capital letters, or punctuation; using large amounts of "1337 speak", et cetera)
* Post counting (i.e. "First", "100th Post")

Lets add a bulletpoint:

• Accounts created for blatantly insincere, obnoxious, and/or disruptive reasons

Adding these two clauses to the ToS will put a check on the specific alt behaivor that so many find pointless and annoying in the CC, without hamstringing anybodies freedom to create an alt for legitimate reasons. The purpose of this proposal is to help upkeep the high standards of intellectualism, civility, proper debate and discussion on TWC.

edit: Changed wording as per Tacs suggestion

[Gaius Baltar]

Some clause needs to be inserted that holds the "primary" account holder liable for alt account infractions.

[RZZZA]

Some clause needs to be inserted that holds the "primary" account holder liable for alt account infractions.

but thats already the case though, isnt it? This proposal is meant to have an effect regardless of wether or not its known for a fact that the person is an alt, or wether or not we know who his main is.

If we happen to know, then by all means, punish the main. But this is just meant to curtail certain irritating alt behaivor that impedes the flow of civil discussion, it could be applied to alt and non-alt members alike.

[Gaius Baltar]

Im not aware of any legislation that would make a member responsible for behavior in alt accounts. There was an amendment that banned alt badged accounts.

My reasoning is, if the alt account gets hit with a penalty, and the "primary" account does not, then its not going to have much of an effect.

[RZZZA]

but staff already run checks and keep records of members and their suspected alts, and if it is proven that a member is accumulating infractions on his alt, the alt becomes indefinitely suspended and the main incurs his warnings.

This is already standard operating practice from what I can tell (but correct me if I'm wrong). My focus is not so much on the "prove who's an alt and connect the dots to his main" part, but rather on just outlying the specific behaivors that people have identified as annoying, disruptive or pointless and making them against the ToS, so they may be more readily moderated upon.

Staff and the moderators in the previous thread had stated how difficult it is to know who's an alt, and to provide enough proof to connect an alt to the main. Thats why this proposal tries to steer clear of the more difficult and work intensive stuff and just focuses on highlighting certain disruptive behaivor in the CC that draws ire to these few bad alts, so that moderators can do their jobs with more ease, clearer sense of purpose and increased cohesion.

[Gaius Baltar]

but staff already run checks and keep records of members and their suspected alts

Staff does not now, or has ever, checked and kept records of alternate account creations. Why? Because several staff members have many alternate accounts themselves. In fact, I know of one current staff member who had (when I had the opportunity to check) well over 3 dozen alternate accounts. The reasoning behind this amount of account creation is dubious, at best.

but rather on just outlying the specific behaivors that people have identified as annoying, disruptive or pointless and making them against the ToS, so they may be more readily moderated upon

I agree with this, and support your proposal.

[RZZZA]

wait a minute, Manstein told me that as CoM he kept a list of alts and their suspected mains.

And I thought for sure that it was already staff policy to suspend indefinitely an alt that breaks the ToS and punish their main instead. The only problem with this is that it's not very easy to prove if someone is an alt, and if so, to whom does he belongs.

[Serious Spamurai]

*Any infractions received by alts are transferred to the main, in addition, if the alt account is either designed for the sole pupose of trolling or being disruptive, then the neccessary infractions are applied to the main account (if known, otherwise they are recorded until the maker of the account becomes known) and the alt is banned.

We could IP ban the IP addresses from Proxy sites, or at least the ones on the first page of a google search.

[RZZZA]

*Any infractions received by alts are transferred to the main, in addition, if the alt account is either designed for the sole pupose of trolling or being disruptive, then the neccessary infractions are applied to the main account (if known, otherwise they are recorded until the maker of the account becomes known) and the alt is banned.

I support and would like to adopt this suggestion into my proposal

We could IP ban the IP addresses from Proxy sites, or at least the ones on the first page of a google search.

Not sure at all about this, its beyond my technical expertise. I reserve judgement until more opinions from more learned people than I are expressed.

[Muizer]

I agree that the use of "disposable account" to deflect punishment away from a "main account" is in principle behaviour that is frowned upon and should be discouraged by all means available. But I should add that in the absence of reliable proof (I almost wrote "Prof" there ) we don't want to embark on witchhunts.

[Simetrical]

There is no technical solution to alternate accounts. IP addresses do not map cleanly to individuals: people may share computers, and will surely have access to multiple computers nowadays. If this decision is passed, and then put into practice (I'm skeptical that we'll do the latter even if it is passed), whether someone is an alt account will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

[RZZZA]

This proposal is mainly about, enforcing behaivoral standards, which can occur regardless of wether or not it's proven that the offending party is an alt account.

[Hotspur]

There is one small snafu - the trolling subsection of the TOS is being removed:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=110763

[RZZZA]

There is one small snafu - the trolling subsection of the TOS is being removed:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=110763

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, Ozy knows this thread exists and I await his comments concerning this little issue before I do or say anything.

[Tom Paine]

If you're going to push ahead with this decision it will need to be done in line with the new ToS. Since Trolling is being removed, you'd probably be wanting to create a new Term. Whether you follow this advice on redrafting is up to you.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

Not sure we really need this. If someone gets a warning as an alt we can apply the warning to the original and can ban the alt.

The problem is, as Sim points out, that even if the real owner isn't trying to hide their tracks it can be impossible to find out who they are (for example, my current IP address points to Vodaphone UK and there are many, many people who use that). Furthermore, if someone wants to they can totally anonymise themselves (as a recent case proved).

So, basically we already have the powers we need to deal with alt accounts, I'm not convinced we need any more.

[RZZZA]

Not sure we really need this. If someone gets a warning as an alt we can apply the warning to the original and can ban the alt.

This proposal deals with narrowing down which specific behaivor should be caution or warning-worthy, specifically for suspected alts since they are the most frequent transgressors, but more generally for anyone whose posts disrupt a thread by following a specific formula, as outlined in the o.p.

The problem is, as Sim points out, that even if the real owner isn't trying to hide their tracks it can be impossible to find out who they are (for example, my current IP address points to Vodaphone UK and there are many, many people who use that). Furthermore, if someone wants to they can totally anonymise themselves (as a recent case proved).

It doesnt matter if the offendor truly is an alt, or if thats yet to be proven, the point of this proposal is to hone in on specifically disruptive and annoying behaivor, stereotypically attributed to alts, so that mods may work with a clearer sense of purpose and with increased unity.

So, basically we already have the powers we need to deal with alt accounts, I'm not convinced we need any more.

I'm unconvinced, the only time a moderator can step in is when an alt breaks the ToS, but many actions stereotypically attributed to annoying alts do not, as of yet, fall under the category of ToS breach, so the mods are powerless. This proposal will hopefully address that, so the mods can do their jobs more effectively.

[Hotspur]

I think BpT wants the very act of using an alt to commit a TOS breach to become an offense.

[RZZZA]

just read the O.P. to see what I want. To put it succinctly, I want the ToS amended to specify which stereotypical alt behaivors will no longer be tolerated, so that the mods could moderate more freely with the new amended ToS as justification to tighten the figurative reigns on disruptive posters.

This amendment was purposefully rewritten to please the naysayers in staff, who say its impractical or impossible to enforce a full out alt account ban. Everything in this proposal is technically feasible.

And for the record, I think Ozy is okay with adding this proposal to his New Terms of Service proposal, if both of them pass. He cant verify this now since he suspended himself for some reason, but hopefully when he comes back he can clarify this.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

just read the O.P. to see what I want. To put it succinctly, I want the ToS amended to specify which stereotypical alt behaivors will no longer be tolerated, so that the mods could moderate more freely with the new amended ToS as justification to tighten the figurative reigns on disruptive posters.

you've missed th point though - we already have these powers, there is no distinction between an alt flaming and a true individual member flaming.

Other than that if (and it is a big if) we can prove it is an alt then the infractions get applied back to the 'owning' account.

What more do we want?

This amendment was purposefully rewritten to please the naysayers in staff, who say its impractical or impossible to enforce a full out alt account ban. Everything in this proposal is technically feasible.

apart from the minor detail of being able to prove who an alt account belongs to.......

And for the record, I think Ozy is okay with adding this proposal to his New Terms of Service proposal, if both of them pass. He cant verify this now since he suspended himself for some reason, but hopefully when he comes back he can clarify this.

You are labouring under the misunderstanding that it is Ozy's ToS changes. As he would tell you if he were around changes to ToS have to get the agreement of Hex before they go anywere (which is currently what s happening)

I'm unconvinced, the only time a moderator can step in is when an alt breaks the ToS, but many actions stereotypically attributed to annoying alts do not, as of yet, fall under the category of ToS breach, so the mods are powerless. This proposal will hopefully address that, so the mods can do their jobs more effectively.

if a member (alt or otherwise) doesn't break the ToS then the moderators can't do anything about them.

However, if you really want to hand me the power to decide that I (or my moderators) can decide to hand out a warning on the basis that a person is being annoying in their posting (and can be suspected of being an alt) then by all means do so