New account in FAF

[Skrat]

@maudlin27 @Giebmasse @IndexLibrorum

Thanks for the answers.

I understand your position and why you cannot disclose this information.

My position is that any exceptions to the FAF rules should be public. It's logical and doesn't take much time.

This would help to avoid a lot of unnecessary requests for moderation.

Or at least instead of such an answer (which was received by several people at once) "Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We will investigate'
Moderators can tell the truth. "This is an old player, the previous account was deleted, and we allowed him to create a new one. Thank you for understanding and have a good game!"

[Sainse]

@Jip said in New account in FAF:

@Skrat I don't see the need for such measures. Nicknames are meaningless (to me) to identify people since they get changed too often.

I can see the full history of their nicknames by one clicking any player profile. It’s pretty trackeable this way. And yes, it’s important for many players including me & Skrat. For me it helps since the impression about particular players is shaped over long period of time.

If old account nicknames history (or at least the last one) is transitioned to the new account (as a part of creating said account) it will resolve the issue.

[magge]

Skrat, you have raised your concerns respectfully, and that is appreciated.

Exceptions are incredibly rare. They are generally based on sensitive context that usually cant or should not be made public. That does not mean a moderator is being inconsistent with the rules; it means the moderator team applies judgment.

We, as a community, can appreciate that a skilled player has returned after requesting account removal many years ago and is once again contributing to the dying competitive scene, or we can blow a rare exception out of proportion and turn it into an issue to talk about, instead of just enjoying the game.

Sure, there is always something to improve, but spending energy and attention on one rare exception is not where I see real value. Things like this always take more time and create more debate than they are worth to me.

It is never just a "quick fix".

However, if this topic is still very important to you/someone else, I would suggest drafting an official proposal to the Association on how FAF should handle users who had their accounts removed years ago and are now asking to return.

Writing a proposal could help highlight how complex and challenging these decisions can be; and why, in some cases, a simple one-time exception might be the better alternative.

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this.

[NOC-]

Why is the steam link not wiped upon the GDPR data removal request.

[Deribus]

Because if it weren't then any and all moderation would be completely pointless. Get slapped with a 2 hour ban? Have your account deleted and spin up a new one, tada it's like nothing ever happened.

[BlackYps]

GDPR allows keeping specific data to protect the interests of the organization, even in the case of a deletion request.

[NOC-]

Only for a certain period of time.

[Nuggets]

If everything is as you have written @magge then I retract everything I said and find this completely reasonable.
I think "most" people here know which account we are currently talking about. According to what I've been told his smurf / alt account / whatever you want to call it was playing "a few months ago", not years (and then deleted and now he / she is here with a new one - allowed by faf because of "something he did for faf"). That being said, this is second hand information and might be completely false, as I do not have the option to verify this.

The main problem here for me is not doubting if anybody on the moderation team is lying, it is the reasoning that is being questioned here. Although questioning this, from my perspective, is not easy because, as i said, i only have second hand information.

[IndexLibrorum]

@NOC For as long as is reasonably necessary for the purpose of that data, as defined by the organisation, actually. Have a quick google to learn more.

@Nuggets said in New account in FAF:

I think "most" people here know which account we are currently talking about. According to what I've been told his smurf / alt account / whatever you want to call it was playing "a few months ago", not years (and then deleted and now he / she is here with a new one - allowed by faf because of "something he did for faf"). That being said, this is second hand information and might be completely false, as I do not have the option to verify this.

Allow me to clear that up for you: all of this is false.

[Nuggets]

@IndexLibrorum said in New account in FAF:

@NOC For as long as is reasonably necessary for the purpose of that data, as defined by the organisation, actually. Have a quick google to learn more.

@Nuggets said in New account in FAF:

I think "most" people here know which account we are currently talking about. According to what I've been told his smurf / alt account / whatever you want to call it was playing "a few months ago", not years (and then deleted and now he / she is here with a new one - allowed by faf because of "something he did for faf"). That being said, this is second hand information and might be completely false, as I do not have the option to verify this.

Allow me to clear that up for you: all of this is false.

okay, thanks. Figured as much because it sounded way too sus

[Lunyshko]

@Jip Be smarter, do not rewrite the system, use barcodes

[Yew]

@snoog said in New account in FAF:

The FAF forums have become more entertaining than FAF itself these past few months. Holy hell these endless threads about moderation are so inane. Do y'all not have anything better to do? Someone asked for their account to be deleted, and then made a new account at some point later in time? What the hell is the problem? I've done this myself in several games. Why do you even care? Just play the damn game.

reported.