ti-legacy.com

LANS wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 11, 2021 2:56 pm

I voted No. I have seen many, many bad examples of this when it was allowed. Playing an active mage and an active orderite is borderline impossible without it coming into conflict.
If the ban is lifted anyways, please apply a ban on Order-Sanctum alts, just like Reeves-BCG.
An alternative is to lift the ban for the non-militant Order (priests).

I'm against banning Order-Sanctum alts - it's still too restrictive. I could get around only opening up the non militant branch of the order, frankly spoken, at this point any order presence would help. But considering Kin said none of the investigations turned up anything of substance, it's likely that the bad examples were in the end valid and not a case of crossplay, even if from the outside they may have seemed sus. So I'm not very worried about the potential of abuse - and we also have cnotes to check on. So I feel quite comfortable opening up the whole order.

I voted yes.

We generally seem to have a tendency of banning a feature altogether if there's the slightest potential of abuse and I think there's many cases of where that hurts the game more than it helps and this may be one of them.

Staub wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 12, 2021 5:27 pm

I'm against banning Order-Sanctum alts - it's still too restrictive. I could get around only opening up the non militant branch of the order, frankly spoken, at this point any order presence would help. But considering Kin said none of the investigations turned up anything of substance, it's likely that the bad examples were in the end valid and not a case of crossplay, even if from the outside they may have seemed sus. So I'm not very worried about the potential of abuse - and we also have cnotes to check on. So I feel quite comfortable opening up the whole order.

This is where I agree the most. Also, it's easy to put in place a policy that states "violating crossplay can lead to severe punishments", etc etc. Policy gets violated, a retcon is made as necessary, end of story. I think that until there is ever a case of this -actually- being a problem; A case of this policy being violated that Staff can quantifiably determine has occurred, it's ridiculous to ban the feature altogether, just because it -might- happen.

If that's how we're going to weight how features are allowed or disallowed, then I'm sure we can fathom a whole slew of new features we can disallow based off of fantasy (paranoia).