Defining "Impersonation"

Again, it depends on the context.

Your use of the name itself might be allowed. However, there may be a problem if:

  • it’s not part of a larger theme
  • you actively tell somebody that you are WS
  • you don’t actively tell somebody, but when they ask, you say “yes”

So all I would have to do is say our theme is random names and tell people I’m not him. Witch could or could not be a lie and up to them to decide lol

Lol stop wasting Pie’s time with this BS… we would know it was you because you would probably misspell his name.

1 Like

I know if someone plays under my name under and “theme” I’d consider it as them impersonating me even if they said it wasn’t me

Him realizing that his rules need editing isn’t a waste of time. If he allows bits and pieces of rules do to simple word games of context then this can get dirty fast

1 Like

ATM all that’s been said in this thread I could have half the galaxy banned lmfao

I don’t think you being obnoxious and throwing around half baked scenarios is going to make him realize anything other than Mods should take care of this and let him get back to building this game.

That’s your opinion.

Yeah I can’t code right now anyway, I’m about to be on the road. No waste of time here, but we may move this into a separate topic about impersonation details.

Anyway:

If we could confirm that your theme is actually random names, then yes this would be perfectly fine.

You’d be within you’re right here. If this was the case, you could report it and we’d likely tell the player to choose a different name to use.

Nobody’s stopping you from making a report. If you really believe violations have occurred, make a report and include specific information and we’ll look into it.

@Picklearmy we should hear him out. Others may have similar questions at some point, which will make this useful as a reference in the long term.

Lol violations have definitely been made but it wouldn’t feel right having about 7 players across 4 or 5 families ansd who knows possibly even myself blocked or banned for not being aware that the rules are so up in the air and easily twisted depending on the players excuse of the context.
I think the rules need to be more concrete and clear, I only used family 28 as an example for how easily the rules can be twisted for or against someone

Its hard to disageee with @Malin

Hes only stating whats stated in the rule book. Its clear what you cant do about impersonating. His posts and rebuttals are very clear.

Its also clear that people who are in that family will defend there theme which they should.

Scrap that rule if you dont want to keep having that debate.

2 Likes

@Malin, you’re correct, rules can be twisted.

We do get plenty of reports of people just trying to get people banned. Many times they are determined to be be without merit, and an attempt to twist the rules exactly like you’re describing.

This is why we conduct investigations, and don’t ban anybody simply for having been reported.
Rules being dependent on context is exactly what allows us to throw out the baseless accusations.

Remember, a report does not automatically mean a ban.

Keeping the game fair depends on people reporting violations. We can’t force you to do so, but if you are waiving your chance to see the rules enforced, you are accepting that valid violations will not be punished because you think invalid violations might be.

The rulebook also says this:

Staff has determined that impersonation requires intent to deceive. As there is no intent to deceive, there is no impersonation. As there is no impersonation, there is no violation.

Given that the rules are very clear on both of these points, it’s not hard at all to disagree with @Malin.

There is no debate here. There is no impersonation.

There family name doesn’t state that they are not the mods in play so it would be deceiving unless they inform all.
They may not be deceiving the mods but I’m sure there are players that didn’t see an open discussion about it so it could be deceiving to some. Your expectations is for us to to message every player and ask them if they are the real player since a “theme” could be anything.

For example family # 0000 family theme: players of ic
Family name: dinasours
Players names: pie, Sol, cells, thebigone
Real player names: pickle, remo, frosty, murder

To not be deceiving and breaking the rules just inform the few players that do ingame mail you that you are not whomever and that’s it.
Seems pretty deceiving still to me @I_like_pie

I am pretty sure if we tried that theme, TBO would have changed our names. Maybe since SOME players are so confused this should just be avoided altogether.

@Malin they are not required to state in their family name that “We are not actually the mods”. Their family name is actually how you know that it’s a theme at all.

Your example below isn’t the same scenario:

The difference there is that the family name “dinasours” doesn’t imply anything about the theme.

In the case with the “mods”, their family name is exactly “The Mods” in a galaxy alongside a family named “Married with children” where their empire names are TV characters.

Here’s a better example of what would be more problematic:

Family name: i hope we win MW this time
Players names: pie, Sol, cells, thebigone

In this example, there’s no indication that a theme is even present.

I have no such expectation. What I am saying is that in order for them to impersonate, a player in this family would have to actively claim that they are actually a moderator. They have not done so.

I don’t believe the onus is on the themed family to be this clear about their theme. If individual players within the family are not actively telling others that they are actually moderators, I don’t believe they are being deceitful.

Confusing? Possibly, if you’re not familiar with the game. Deceiving though, no.

Fwiw, we are considering de-anonymizing all players everywhere. Themes could still be possible, but a player’s master empire name would always be accessible. This would solve this problem (and other problems), but there are some concerns about removing the ability to play undercover.

We haven’t yet discussed it publicly because we don’t yet agree within Staff whether or not the pros outweigh the cons.

Despite our disagreement, @Malin has surfaced some understandable concerns here. As others seem to share his point of view, we will likely open up the conversation about de-anonymization soon.

To that end, thank you @Malin for clearly expressing your concerns here.

1 Like

It turns out we’ve already publicly discussed de-anonymization before Staff recently discussed it internally.

Your thoughts on that topic are welcome.

We’re gping offtopic here. The topic is about impersonation.

I feel the rule is pretty clear cut. You use someone else’s nick, it’s basically a rule violation unless you meet certain criteria.
Reasons could be: being part of a (very) clear family theme; or: you have permission of the actual person, and are not actively claiming you are that person.

If you feel someone is breaking this rule, drop a note to @moderators. We can look into it and change someones nickname or take other measures.

This is a rule as old as the game itself, and it has never given very much trouble. I don’t see reason to start now.

@HellRaizeR - you make a valid point, and it’s something that has come up internally more than once too, but this is not the place to discuss that.

We’ve added clarification to the rule below in response to the feedback provided here. If you have further questions or feedback, please feel free to post in #support:questions and #support:feedback.

Thank you everybody for your input.