New account in FAF

[Jip]

You're (both) being unreasonable here. This conversation is leaving a sour taste for me. You ask for more bureaucracy. And at the same time (in other topics) you ask for less. There's no way to satisfy you people. It's getting a little bit silly. I won't respond further. If you feel this wronged then I suggest you try to join the moderation team. Then perhaps you can 'do it right' when you're on the other side of the equation.

I guess it's my miss interpretation that it's a nice change* for once that the competitive scene grew a little bit . Just take the win and appreciate it. It can be that simple.

[Skrat]

@Jip I'm not asking for more or less bureaucracy. I ask the moderators to be consistent and logical.

If there are more rules, then for everyone, if there are fewer, then for everyone too. I agree that if the previous account is deleted, the player has the right to receive a new one.

But I still haven't heard a single reason why information about a past nickname should be a secret.

Hiding such information suggests that such players (there are several of them) were previously banned for cheats or smurfing. There's no other reason to hide anything. I'm not the only one who thinks so.

I am grateful for your answers and do not ask you to continue the dialogue if it is uncomfortable for you. I hope the moderator team will also respond with something.

[Giebmasse]

https://faforever.com/privacy

[Nuggets]

@Jip said in New account in FAF:

You're (both) being unreasonable here. This conversation is leaving a sour taste for me. You ask for more bureaucracy. And at the same time (in other topics) you ask for less. There's no way to satisfy you people. It's getting a little bit silly. I won't respond further. If you feel this wronged then I suggest you try to join the moderation team. Then perhaps you can 'do it right' when you're on the other side of the equation.

I guess it's my miss interpretation that it's a nice chance for once that the competitive scene grew a little bit . Just take the win and appreciate it. It can be that simple.

I think we are kinda talking past each other. As Skrat said "we" (although i dont know how it became "we", i was just clarifying what Skrat was saying) are not tying to add more bureaucracy. FAF has rules in place, and in this case (or maybe even more cases if Skrat knows more) an exception has been made where the reasoning is not known.

P.s. tried to join team moderation over a year ago! Got declined! So unfortunately, I can't "do it right" (not saying anything wrong was done, just quoting you).

Also not sure why faf privacy is being quoted here. Nobody is asking for personal information. What Skrat was asking was the previous Username.

[snoog]

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.

[Nuggets]

@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.

I wish i could. But even private games get "interrupted" by the rules of faf - but its a different topic.

[Skrat]

This post is deleted!

[Skrat]

@Giebmasse Im agree with Nuggets. Im not sure why faf privacy is being quoted here. Nobody is asking for personal information.

But if the player's nickname is private information, then I have 2 questions.

1. Should moderators delete my nickname history upon my request?
2. 
   If the answer to both questions is yes, then I have no other questions.

P.s.: I'm not asking the moderators to ban anyone.

[Skrat]

@snoog I didn't ask questions that required endless discussion. But for some reason, no one can answer them.

[maudlin27]

@Skrat said in New account in FAF:

@snoog I didn't ask questions that required endless discussion. But for some reason, no one can answer them.

Questions you've asked from another skim through them:

1. What could be the moderators' reasons for giving a player permission to create a new account?
2. The more secrecy there is, the more questions there are. Is not it so?
3. Should moderators delete my nickname history upon my request?
4. Can you ask to have your account deleted and come back on a new one a few years down the line?

Most have been answered already.

1. See Jip's first post for potential reasons (If I understood correct then in this situation a player returned who requested to have his account deleted a few years ago. That means he can't restore the old account. The only way to play again would be to create a new account.)
2. We've had seemingly near-endless threads and questions about moderation in spite of there being far more public information about how moderation is undertaken than a couple of years ago.
3. You can ask to have your account deleted.
4. As Jip already said, there's no guarantee but you're free to try.

I doubt you're going to be satisfied with these answers though since you seemed to think no-one had answered your questions.

As for "I'm not asking for more or less bureaucracy. I ask the moderators to be consistent and logical"
Actually you're asking for more bureaucracy, asking the moderators to be inconsistent, and dismissing logic given to you for why they might not want to do what you want (Jip and Giebmasse's posts). You seem to be asking that in the event that the moderators decide to allow someone who deleted their account to use a new account, the moderators make this information public (that's asking for more buraeucracy). It'd also mean an exception is made by the moderators against the normal approach of not making their decisions public and/or discussing specific cases (i.e. for them to be inconsistent).

[Giebmasse]

@Skrat said in New account in FAF:

@Giebmasse Im agree with Nuggets. Im not sure why faf privacy is being quoted here. Nobody is asking for personal information.

User requests account deletion as per GDPR and our privacy policy.
Account is deleted.
You are then later asking for moderators to restore erased account data and make it public with some kind of announcement.

[IndexLibrorum]

We do not share information about an account that was removed by GDPR request, insofar as we still have any information. This should be obvious.

Other questions have been answered.

[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.