So what model of human/Settler do we get, here? That (in combination with “A human with access to the blog [...] may make a blog post making clear their wish to be a Settler [and as a result] they become a Settler.”) blog accounts and humans are entirely different concepts, and Settlers are a subset of humans?

So a human who is playing the game can’t pretend to be another human who is also playing the game - but can pretend to be a human who isn’t playing, and can legally set up multiple blog accounts so long as they declare this and don’t try to use them to re-register as a Settler.

I think the only valid thing we’re losing here is the option for an old player to rejoin with a new account, which the current rules amiably allow (that we only care if someone tries to run multiple non-Idle Settlers at the same time), but this amendment now requires full disclosure of. I’m not sure how big a deal that is.

> So what model of human/Settler do we get, here? That (in combination with “A human with access to the blog [...] may make a blog post making clear their wish to be a Settler [and as a result] they become a Settler.”) blog accounts and humans are entirely different concepts, and Settlers are a subset of humans?

That’s already the model. The current wording of Fair Play doesn’t change that, it just doesn’t do what we seem to want it to do.

> So a human who is playing the game can’t pretend to be another human who is also playing the game - but can pretend to be a human who isn’t playing, and can legally set up multiple blog accounts so long as they declare this and don’t try to use them to re-register as a Settler.

Sure? That seems to me more a moderation issue than a gameplay issue. If someone sets up a bunch of accounts and then does nothing with them, I see why you as admin might care, but I don’t see why the game of BlogNomic should care.

> I think the only valid thing we’re losing here is the option for an old player to rejoin with a new account, which the current rules amiably allow (that we only care if someone tries to run multiple non-Idle Settlers at the same time), but this amendment now requires full disclosure of. I’m not sure how big a deal that is.

The current rule seems to request disclosure? Isn’t that what the “control both a non-Idle Settler and any Idle Settlers” bit is about?

If you want, I can remove the “should announce publicly” bit entirely.

All good, just thinking it through. And you’re right, I’d overlooked the current disclosure.

I think we probably do need the “should announce publicly if they control multiple blog accounts” to get around the issue where an existing player tries to sign up as a new one. Right now, if you signed up from a different email address and made a join post from a new blog account, it would be fully illegal for an admin to take that at face value and add you as a player (you weren’t “a human with access to the blog who is not already a Settler” so there wasn’t a valid blog post to react to), and there’s no way that the admin can know that. This amendment at least requires your join post to reveal that you control multiple accounts at that point.

What’s the objection or concern here, Josh?

Multiple small wording dislikes. (“through the use of multiple blog accounts or by any other means” - I dislike examples being used in situations like this as they are restrictive rather than expansive;  “A Settler should announce publicly if they control multiple blog accounts” - when, how often, what constitutes a public announcement, the expansion from controlling an idle Settler to an account of any kind…)

The “should announce publicly” term is already in the rule.

I can’t think up any situations where the expansion of scope causes a problem. And it seems beneficial to rule out impersonation more broadly. (It is, I think, possible under the current ruleset to make a new blog account with a screen name that matches another player, and to post fake blog content to trick others into reacting to it.)

I said they were minor concerns, and I didn’t put a comment on my vote because I didn’t particularly want to defend them, but I find the text if this proposal to be strictly worse than the status quo, and its failure to fix existing issues is not exculpatory.

That’s fair enough. Does seem like it spooked everyone else from commenting or voting on opening night, though - and even me from casting my vote until I’d checked that I wasn’t missing something obvious. Veteran votes on Core carry a lot of weight.

Mm, and that’s a pity - in an ideal world we would have a high level of confidence that players were particularly reading and digesting core modifications and making informed votes, rather than cleaving to the old guarder they most affiliate with - but I do understand that we don’t live in that world.

Partly I expect people were waiting to see how the discussion plays out - which also admittedly has the side effect of making core proposals more likely to fail due to timeouts (rightfully) failing any core proposal without enough votes.

Regarding the current wording, I think I’m going to vote   here. I’m not 100% on the wording of “act as another settler” since in a dynastic rule I could see an argument that it doesn’t restrict you from *being* another settler, but as a fair play guideline that would likely fall under the restriction of no core rule scams.