ModEdit for context taken from original topic description: "Using non-game information to identify old players."

I wouldn't bring this up if it weren't for a conversation that took place tonight with another player in IRC. We had been discussing the many methods used by many alliances in the game to acquire information on players that visit IRC channels and other alliance forums. It is known that Cybernations may be classified as a mmog, but there is no denying that Cybernations is more of a community, layered in messaging and posting in forums and in game. I’m sure that you must be aware that if a player is attacked and has enough popularity within the game, his nation is then ZIed, and thus he must start over. This is where I'm not so clear on the rules, if a player deletes his nation and goes under different nation names and ruler names, is he not then (IC) a different person?

Its not a secret that many alliances use forms of identifying old players that wish to return to the game, even if they are "under the radar" so to speak. They then are Harassed and threatened in game, on your forums, publicly. Ultimately they must end their nation (usually in ZI). This information that was obtained to identify the player was not information that was given freely, instead there are many who copy IP addresses, and look for any electronic signature that they can to help identify players. There is only one problem, IP addresses are not (IC) information, and neither is any other means to gather intelligence on a player in Cybernations.


What this adds up to is Cyber bullying, Harassment, and ultimately Stalking of players within the Cybernations community. This should not only be condemned but dealt with harshly by Cybernation's Staff. Instead I see pleas, inside the forums, asking if they can go on playing without interference from past accounts, and then Threat after Threat.

I was once told myself by a former player and leader of an alliance, which quote "If I ever created another nation, they will find it and kill it". That is a threat not to an (IC) player, but instead a threat in (OOC). Some of the actions that I have seen of late, are not only against the rules, but can constitute legal action.

I will give a good example of bullying right here in your own Moderation forum. Here a player has posted a topic on OOC attacks, and with the intent of discussing it with the staff, and viola, some one appears to tell him to quote "Speaking as a man who frequently arranges punishment in-game for things said on these forums, I'd advise you to bite your tongue."

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=5256

That is a threat, but no moderation found that to be such a threat, why? Why are players forced to leave this game on the basis of their (OOC)? Who is actually moderating the forums? The game?

There really is a real sense of apprehension when posting in the forums, and or replying to them and ultimately whether or not you can leave the game and return. In fact I would be willing to bet my account, that this post would cause me "in game punishment" for an (OOC) post.

I fail to see how this comes even close to stalking or harassment or that pedantic term "cyberbullying".

No one is followed home, no one is hunted down on MSN or MySpace or Facebook to be harassed. We simply police our own interests within the limited structure of a game.

Let's be honest, this is about personal responsibility and power politics. No one who incurs a harsh punishment wants to pay it, and those who disagree want "God" to step in and fix something they can't do themselves.

I'm going to have to agree with Josef Thorne on this one. It's incredibly easy to reroll and stay under the radar. You'll find that in most cases where rerolled nations are sentenced to Perma-ZI it's because they did something that allowed themselves to be found out. I can personally attest to this statement.

It's also pretty ignorant to think that you can just post whatever you want on these forums and believe that there won't be any in-game repercussions.

As we stated back during the NoV issue, players can declare war on anyone at any time for any reason. We can't and won't police the war system in that way. The recent ruling has to do with legal issues, extortion of real life possessions, such as money (even in the form of donations), forums, and anything else opens the door for legal action in RL. We allow players to police themselves through the war system in any manner they deem fit.

I'm curious if anyone has examples of players "having to leave the game" as the OP describes.

edit in SoE's post as well






For what it's worth:

--I HAVE seen a player who has had his MySpace profile flooded with derogatory comments/posts after he was forced into perma-ZI
--I have seen entire alliances condemned for the OOC actions (maybe IC too? no one will ever know for certain the way this game works) that have nothing to do with the game
--I have seen players forced to either quit or completely abandon their OOC personality to play the game (across reroll perma-ZI)
--I have seen a player get IC actions as a response to the Water Cooler (I believe that is where Smallfrog's posts got him into trouble)
--I have seen entire alliances sent to near ZI because a reroll did exactly what you say Sithis

Actions of the nature the OP describes do exist and happen. I have no idea how many alliances watch or look for permaZIs over rerolls but I am sure that there are quite a few players in the game right now who would suddenly be attacked if their old identities were known.



I think what the OP is going at is more that people should not have to fear posting something that could cause IC consequences for something completely OOC.

Can you expand a little more on this? I think that based on the OP he is saying those who would "need" (in their opinion) to police the system through the use of war have no IC power to prevent actions they believe are happening OOC.

Is it easy to stay under the radar if people copy your IP address to try and find you on IRC to find you IC?

I vaguely remember a question I asked once of Moo aka TrotskysRevenge about why we (the NPO) were basically attacking the entire Devildogs alliance for eternity under a "permanent ZI" sentence after a DDOS attack on our forums, and he basically said that there was evidence that it was connected to one of their members (which there was) however there wasn't any certainty as to any one of them in particular so they all needed to take in-game "punishment" forever as justice.

While this is a dubious case of what is described in the OP especially in light of the fact that they were originally attacked for other reasons entirely, and I don't care about reasons for war as long as it's not personal OOC type stuff, this is an example of a pervasive attitude among many "important" people that they are allowed to do or say whatever they want and see everything against them as personal, which essentially results in griefing in the form of trying to keep a player themselves out of the game by attacking any nation they have and doing whatever they can to identify that player if they try to start over with a new identity because it's "justice", flaming and trolling on the forums, which often results in warns and then whining about anti-whatever mod bias on IRC, attempting to use moderation as a weapon to get opponents banned (this seems to be happening a lot towards Atrophis and other FAN players lately, at least in my observation). This same attitude is what led to a lot of events from last summer when Dizzay got banned and potential mod identities were leaked in order to "punish" them for it.

However, it's a very difficult standard to prove that someone is outright harassing or stalking a player themselves in the context of the game, in a large because of the "private channels ftw" tradition that even if you were to obtain a confession from Glorious Leader on IRC stating "you are being attacked because you used to be player X and we don't want you playing this game any more, and I personally ordered the attacks", I don't believe that would be tangible and acceptable evidence in order to take action against them with because they could just appeal and deny the conversation. On the other hand, I think the feeling that you'll be de facto banned from the game because you cannot even start over, by vigilante moderation in the form of influential players in response to you opposing them essentially does constitute a type of harassment, although I seriously doubt it would be considered as such in the legal sense even if you could prove it, however it does degrade the quality of gameplay. In my analysis, this is a very murky issue with no simple answers, even if the complaints are for the most part, very valid.

I may be missing something simple here, but it's not all that easy to reroll and stay under the radar if you want to play CN to the fullest again. If your nation is deleted for inactivity and you get banned and forum banned, you have to appeal the warn and apply for a name change. Everyone knows who you are immediately.

I think?

In general I think Perma-ZI is warranted for those who have committed rather distasteful OOC actions such as Hacking, Personal Attacks, etc.

But I will speak out heavily against holding someones nation responsible for OOC traits of that person (Political affiliation, nationality, sexual preferences, etc) or carrying a punishment for one nations IC actions, onto a future nation. People can, and do create different characters effectively that have NO bearing on their previous one.

I have no qualms about characters being chased down by their actions. This is especially the case if a new character is obviously just a re-copy of the first. But using IP addresses and other personal information to track down someones new nation is crossing the line, and I firmly believe something needs to be done to limit such actions.

You can easily just PM a moderator about the name change, or (maybe? I don't even know) make a new forum account.

The way people get caught is when they join alliances or use IRC. Checking IPs seems to be a common enough thing for alliances to do and it's

I don't think moderators respond to PMs for name changes. And you can't create a new forum account if you already have a banned account.

I personally believe in the "new nation = new identity" way of doing things.

However, if a certain Perma-ZI'd nation that has threatened my alliance in the past comes to my forums under a new name, yet while doing an I.P. check (done usually to prevent multies) uncovers him, I'm more than likely going to decline him.

I understand what you're saying about "threatening" people who come back, but most of the people who "have" to re-roll because of ZI deserved their ZI in the first place (usually by threatening others themselves, being a general nuisance, or flaming). While ICly, they are a new person, their OOC actions and words are inevitably going to be the same.

So, I agree with you, in a sense, but I don't think this is serious to the degree as proposed by your OP. The whole incident with "Myspace" graffiti and flaming someone OOCly for a condition that shouldn't have anything to do with the game was "that serious", it wasn't overlooked, and (iirc), it was handled swiftly in both the IC and OOC realm.

However, one thing that this brings to mind that I absolute hate is when people purposely go looking for threads that "certain people" have posted in simply for the purpose of flaming them. (They know who they are). That to me is what I think of when I think of "harassment", though it should be handled by mods... not the cops.

Not allowing someone in to your alliance that has threatened your alliance in the past I can understand and agree with. As for the second section, that's where I disagree. Although I haven't played CN for long, in other games I have played, I've known many people who were previously "troublemakers" and received those games equivalent of "ZI" that have rerolled into a new identity and played COMPLETELY differently. They didn't try to continue to take down the same alliances, they didn't keep the same personality, and in at least one situation, they actually ended up working together with their former enemies.

In the end, I can and certainly do agree with continuing to ZI someone if they keep up the same actions they performed before. What I disagree with, and can see how it is a form of "stalking," is to seek out people based on their IP in order to do things to them, even if they are playing completely differently and have done nothing wrong. This is where it ventures dangerously into the out of character area and where I think that it falls into the moderators territory to step up and say/do something.

I completely agree, if you create a new character it should not be attacked because of what an old and dead previous character did. Unfortunately, there's not much the staff can do. I think it's a very low move, and I have little respect for those who do it (not counting the obvious exceptions, like ZI for serious OOC acts or re-rolling with the same character identity). But I don't know what more can be done beyond shaking a finger and saying it's a low thing to do, since they can make up whatever other reason they want, even just "because we felt like it."

It's just some people can't accept the idea of proper role-playing, and take the game way to seriously, to the point of attacking the OOC identities of players. It's disgusting.

You have a point or two...but then, I'm inclined to allow folks to re-roll and start again. But, you gotta admit some just do so to spread havoc among alliances. Thus, the reason many alliances check backgrounds...not all...but, many. While automatic kill shouldn't be followed...some do. I'd rather folks watched a bit before deciding "naaa, kill it"






'lo Josef... Don't know why folks are scared of ye...and seem to avoid your comments... And I really don't care LOL. So I'll bite, as it were, on this. Lets say I moved to 3 different houses...yet, you showed up at the door telling me that you would ruin my life unless I left... That would be harrassment. The internet is growing...expanding. And, unfortunately in my book, becoming a way that folks stay in touch and relate to each other. Sad, but true. Some don't see the difference anymore...and for them, I am sad. To some...CN is a home, of sorts.

They have aquaintenances and friends here... <<shrug>>

You may not like them...or, the friends....but...it's still there.

As for personal responsibility. Well...thats different for many folks. You'll note that I have not 'gone-off' since the NpO situation. <<shrugs>> Been reading more and thinking more. I'm still in the 'learning curve', so to speak.

I'd let folks have a chance...it might take only once getting pounded for doing stupid crap...it might take twice....it might take 100 times...but, until they do the stupid crap...something actionable. They should be left alone for the most part.

We do.

I think I have the right for my real life persona to remain completely different, isolated, and protected from my in-game character. It should have no bearing on how my nation and character are treated. And it should be enforced, but unfortunately it is not.

Attacking someone IC for their OOC beliefs or previous identities (not current) is nothing short of bullying and should be treated as such. We all reserve the right to act differently, and mask our persons through our characters, and until this right is forced we cannot truly ever be in character.

Chris Kaos. Enough said.

Chris Kaos specifically acknowledged and violated the surrender terms given to GATO by re-rolling and rejoining the alliance.

GATO was told "Kaos has to go, or else". So he "quits", deletes his nation, re-rolls, then rejoins and immediately starts to work his way back into their system.

Chris Kaos is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. All this nonsense that a new nation is a new person, it's a joke. The face behind the computer screen doesn't change. Changing your nation isn't a free pass to get out of a situation you got yourself into. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Chris Kaos wasn't re-rolled and back in GATO right now.

Because people rarely change.

So the player behind the IC "Chris Kaos" is not allowed to join GATO? Not the "Chris Kaos" persona?

I don't have a link to the original terms to check if it was worded as such, but what you describe is exactly what SoE was asking to see evidence of.

I'm not concerned with what Megabyte wanted to see. I'm explaining why this whole situation is overblown and doesn't address any real issues.

The French-Canadian kid who was Chris Kaos doesn't change. Period. Just because he re-rolled isn't license to go right back to exactly the same things that led to his and his alliance's punishment. This whole debate is a joke. By this logic, anyone can do anything they want anytime without consequence, so long as they're prepared to re-roll.

I don't accept that. Everybody wants a free ride around here. It's ridiculous.

Re-rolling is a consequence. I don't know how you can not see that having to delete your nation is a major consequence. As someone who has had to delete their nation I can tell you that first hand.

I know you and many others do not feel that there is an IC/OOC line but quite frankly that is not for you to decide. All it takes is a quick look at the forum rules to see that the Admin team does feel that their is and should be a line and their opinion should be the only one that matters in terms of game rules.

"having to leave" is kind of a loaded way to phrase that seeing as though no one can force another player to stop logging in and collecting taxes. However players do have the ability to completely destroy a players nation and reputation which effectively removes any enjoyability from the game. That is all fine and good but when players start hunting these players down over multiple accounts they are effectively being forced out of the game.

Using Ip addresses and other such information is nothing more than using OOC information for IC gain.

A nation is a means to an end. Besides the sentimentality of it, I don't see any particular reason why re-rolling should be hard. Especially for those who need to re-roll, in which case they're usually ZI'd in the first place.

As for the imaginary OOC/IC line, I'd love to see the Mod staff try to enforce it. So instead of saying we're attacking someone because they're a Chris Kaos re-roll, we'll say "because we feel like it." Problem solved. Unless the Mod staff intends to expand by about 500% and investigate the inner workings of every alliance, there's not much that can be done. Not to mention it's well outside of their responsibilities, to try and force people to be fair to others.

Besides, so what if someone is forced out of the game? Is CyberNations a human right?

That attitude is exactly what the problem is. Sure the mods might not be able to enforce it but the players should be able to respect the rules even if they are not really enforceable. It is a matter of honor and decency, and I do not mean that in the way it gets thrown around on OWF i mean that you are playing someone else's game, for free, and you should have the respect for said person to play the game the way it is intended to be played.

By your logic if an alliance leader who was an anti-Semite found out another player was Jewish they could attack them because of it and just say "we don't like him" and all would be fine. The mods do not police war reasons but that does not mean we should all just do whatever we want, with the ability to declare war freely comes the responsibility to not abuse that ability.

No cybernations is not a right, and forcing people out of cybernations is also not a right. the only people who should be able to decide who can play this game are admin and the people who he has placed as moderators.

As far as a nation being a means to an end, maybe that is how you view it but not everyone does, and even if a player is at ZI they will still usually have tech improvements and even wonders that can help them rebuild at a very accelerated rate and for many people there is a real life monetary investment behind the nation so losing it is most certainly a consequence.

I have no problem with an anti-Semite going after a Jewish nation. I'm fully confident that that hateful !@#$%^& will get his just desserts from more than one source if he does. There is no such thing as the responsibility to not declare war. It's a game, now you're the one confusing OOC and IC.

What is this "respect for the game" nonsense? By and large, everyone who plays this game plays it with little interference. If Kevin wants to make sure no one's feelings get hurt, he shouldn't go outside or online, much less run a game where the only real fun is the power politics and war. And as for the "no right to force people out", bollocks. Anything that isn't in the game rules, I can do. That includes making life difficult, or impossible, for my enemies in the game, no matter what name they're under.

CK wasn't forced out of the game. The surrender term was "CK can never be in government in GATO again."

That was what was broken.

"Chris Kaos" was not though, which I believe is where this entire discussion rests.

Whatever new persona the "player behind CK" created after destroying the CK identity was in GATO gov.



You have no problems allowing players to be anti-Semitic? Then why do you have a problem with players being reportedly Nazis?

That's e-lawyering, and you know it. He could have been gov in any other alliances, and it would have been legal. He gained his position by telling the AC at the time that he was Chris Kaos. They were aware of it. That's using the previous identity, and not a fresh start.

This I was not aware of.

You misunderstand me. I have no problem with someone being anti-Semitic the same way I have no problem with freedom of expression. Just because you express yourself, doesn't mean I won't respond, and probably in a way you won't like. Same goes for an anti-Semite or an actual Nazi.

You're free to act, but actions have consequences. Cause and effect, they can't be separated at will.

I agree with that, but only to the extent that it remains IC -- if say you and I have a disagreement IC then I have no qualms with you (or I) taking IC actions in response. The entirety of that encounter remains IC.

What becomes a problem is when IC actions are taken as a result of actions that have essentially nothing to do with the IC element of this game.

For example, say I am Christian IRL. Would you condone someone attacking me for no reason other than my RL religion?

Sure, if by condone you mean I'm fine with him doing it, and then I'm fine with a bunch of people smoking his nation for it.

If I have to choose between more choice of actions and less, I'll take the former every time. Failing that, we could just have Kevin remove the war element from the game, that way no one would ever get hurt.

You are just being completely melodramatic here. The issue is not so much who goes to war with who, but rather is it okay to try to annoy and upset a person themselves over an in-game action, and in some cases that has led to harassment off-site as well as threats to leave the game because we won't let you play again. If you believe that's okay, then to be honest, you're not much different from the people from /b/ who also couldn't separate the game from outside the game.

Really I could care less about what happened to GATO or NoV because everyone wanted them dead anyhow (I don't know why that wasn't just stated outright), but the excuses used here on the forums were based on borderline personal attacks, which does have the potential to make the game uncomfortable. I don't know how many times I've seen people try to get Farung or Atrophis warned/banned because they're in peace mode. Basically any action taken or statement made on these forums by a player with the explicit stated intent of removing another player from the game has crossed the line of decency, in my opinion, and those are the ones which should be dealt with.

Firstly it was Sword of Estel, not me.

And secondly, I'll reiterate:

We do not police the in-game war system, anyone can declare for any reason, it is up to the community as a whole to determine whether or not that action justifies THEIR military response. The OOC/IC line is enforced on these forums and so far as OOC laws are concerned, but otherwise it is up to the players to determine how far is too far as far as offsite forums go and the war system goes.

Any OOC information/threats/etc posted on these boards is in clear violation of the rules and will be removed and the poster subject to punishment depending on the extent of the violation.

In short, it is the players' job to determine what constitutes a legitimate reason for war and to respond IC accordingly, it is not the moderators job to decide which wars are just and which are unjust.

Someone listen to this man or woman.

Again, no. I came back and requested a name change. No one took any notice.


I've never heard of this happening.

Those people should be punished by moderation (IMO)

EDIT: Since its not on the forums proper, its rather out of the mods range. Hopefully the community comes down on these players (IC)



In-game war declarations shouldn't be moderated, sorry.



Like Starfox with his many ZI sentences and how he long ago qu-right then. In any case, thats not harassment, much along the lines of what Josef Thorne said.



That is debateable, and therein lies the problem if mods did try to enforce reasons behind in-game war decs...any number of made up shields would come out as players on the losing end of wars would try to use the magic "OOC" button to get reprisal on those attacking them from mods. You can see where this would go bad, fast.


Covered by Dilber.

I point you to Ventbach, and that fiasco. Despite what he did in the past as Barakady, he was found through his IP address on IRC under the name Ventbach.


Edit: clarification

I think this is the key to the issue.
Had CK re-rolled, buried his identity, joined GATO and worked his way up from scratch he could head up GATO today and no one would be the wiser or care
him using his former identity to gain advantages however negated the re-roll

So long as a re-roll is a new character then there is no problems,
However using a re-roll to carry on a previous agenda negates this consideration

Damn, Voodoo beat me to it But yes Ventback AKA Barakady was basically forced to leave the game by asking him to pay an amount of money which he was completely incapable of paying over the time period he was given, and then later told that GOD would probably attack him anyway, whether or not that was a joke? Probably wasn't, since I don't see Ephriam shielding him from Xiphosis at all lol. And indeed, he was tracked down through the IRC channel, which is ultimately not IC. =.=' Even if this is unenforcable, I ditto what I've heard earlier in this thread in basically saying that it would atleast slow this action down, if you can't respect these rules then you shouldn't play the game lol.

GATO not telling NPO about CK came down to a fear of attack. They were afraid of being attacked, so they kept it quiet.
NPO is a great alliance with very high moral standards.
If a player was anti-semitic, that would likely get them a very unpleasant visit by the order.
Remember, NoV was attacked for Racist comments made on another website. NPO was not the first to attack NoV for Racism. FAN did it first, Can anybody say Operation Overlord?
FAN attacks NoV for Racism, NPO attacks FAN for attacking NoV. NPO attacks NoV for the exact same reason FAN did. That means the whole conflict between NPO and FAN is pointless.
Is there any chance of peace between NPO and FAN? In my opinion NPO's moral character should not be called into question. NPO are great people with very high moral standards.
Josef is right, you are free to think and feel as you wish, but when you act out, you better be prepared to pay the consequences of your actions. You act, people react. that is human nature.
I will never question NPO's moral character. They are great people.

This argument is not valid. "Cause-and-effect" is a cycle in nature that cannot be broken. You're talking about things involving human action, which requires choice. There is no "cause-and-effect" in the sense that you are using it.






In regards to the thread as a whole: Attacking someone within the confines of the game for the threats they may/may not possess is a credible military tactic, not "harassment." And it's impossible to determine valid PZI against genuine harassment (attacking for OOC reasons, including "general dislike). So, you could try making PZI against the rules...but then where do you draw the line? Knocking people below 1000 infra? Nukes? Attacking nations at all?

That sounds like a wonderful idea! The moderators are players, with exception of Admin (I guess). Even given that no mods are crooked individuals (and I don't believe any are), they are simply humans, and once in posession of the knowledge of a player's new identity through a name-change PM will use that information, it's impossible that they wouldn't. PM the "wrong" mod and you're back to square one.



Perhaps no one noticed you came back because no one cares who you used to be. If you're implying that you re-rolled under ZI, then you can bet that your IP and host mask are being run through forum and log searches. If you've never heard of people's IPs or host masks being kept and searched, then you haven't been paying attention for the past year.

Players with low posts counts but advanced knowledge of CN politics or history are always subject to comments like "what did the ebil NPO do to you?" or "who were you in the past" or simply "re-roll" and are sometimes reported as ban evaders or multis simply on suspicion.

With that persona, in a few years this game will run out of people to play it because you won't allow people to "re-roll" after they leave. The RL identity behind the character DOES NOT MATTER. Their beliefs DO NOT MATTER. All you have to do is read the Terms and Conditions to know that.

This is an ONLINE INTERNET SIMULATION GAME. The MONEY, RELIGIONS, WARS, ETC. ARE NOT REAL. This game is in NO WAY related to real life, and it says so explicitly in teh terms and conditions. This is a simulation game run completely and entirely separate from the real world.

In this game:

The French-Canadian kid that is Cris Kaos DOES NOT EXIST. What DID exist was his previous nation. When the French-Canadian kid re-rolled in cybernations, his ONLY identity in this game is NATION NAME and NATION RULER. Not the French-Canadian kid, regardless of what his IP or anything else says, because those things only exist in real life. In this simulation, your identity is NATION NAME and NATION RULER, nothing else, not IP Address, Host name, IRC identity, etc.

Complete garbage.

People can re-roll anytime they want. What we're talking about here is a very, very small fraction of people playing this game. That fraction has done or said something to get them singled out for punishment of the more extreme variety. That doesn't go away because he or she puts on a fake mustache and asks everyone to ignore that they're exactly the same person.

@Josef Thorne AKA person of which I was too lazy to quote: You think people like having to re-roll though? Especially if it's based upon something that is more or less OOC or for difference in opinion via the forums? Having to cover up your previous personality? And the biggest part: Having to start the hell over lol. You're nation isn't all that big at the moment but it's obvious that you've played for a while, if something suddenly happened where NPO wasn't the dominant force in CN and someone from a higher up alliance had basically put you on perma zi for something you said on the forums, and you still wanted to play, do you think you'd like having to restart all over again and ten run the risk of THAT too getting stomped if you didn't cover your tracks well enough? Sure people CAN re-roll any time that they want, but that enough should be punishment, especially if they really do nothing bad on the next nation. If you do something bad, you get punished for it, but nothing needs to be permanent. This is a game, there is no irreplacable damage that can really occur via the game and the game only that ONE single person can do.

It is not complete garbage. Some people on here actually play a character who is different than the person they actually are in many ways, those same people are able to change their character if they re-roll, however things like IP tracking prevent them from doing that. Go back and look at my old posts on the CN forums before I re-rolled and now, they are very different in style because, even though I kept the same name IC I play a different character. I know multiple people who have been tracked across accounts for doing nothing more than launching a nuke and that is just wrong. The mods can not police war reasons and their are many reasons for that but like I said earlier just because you can do something does not mean you should.

My nation isn't all that big because I get nuked by rogues on a semi-regular basis

The important point is I don't really care about my nation. Sure, it'd suck to have to re-roll, but if I had to I'd do it.


KingSrqt:

I'm sure there are some people who can re-roll and then change completely. Most do not. To say that re-rolling is a "fresh start" is usually facetious. Re-rolling is usually a way to escape punishment, not a way to start over.