Support and Features for Shared Accounts

[Crumlark]

In light of some widely publicized shared-accounts gone wrong, I would like to bring a suggestion to the attention of Game Admins; Shared Accounts 2.0.

On founding a nation, there is an option to introduce additional 'personalities', separate log-in's that have passwords independent of eachother, with only the original founder having access to permissions to more than one personality or the ability to establish more personalities. Actions taken by one personality outside of the account (dispatches, forum posts) can be undone or modified by other personalities as if they were the same user.

This would improve the game by lowering the amount of trust needed to have an account shared, and open a new form of account raiding that relies more heavily on speed and skill than dominating an account and taking as much time as you wish.

[New Kvenland]

I kind of like this idea, actually. It might take a little while to implement, though, because of the new features implemented (and to be implemented soon).

[Indian Empire]

In light of some widely publicized shared-accounts gone wrong, I would like to bring a suggestion to the attention of Game Admins; Shared Accounts 2.0.

On founding a nation, there is an option to introduce additional 'personalities', separate log-in's that have passwords independent of eachother, with only the original founder having access to permissions to more than one personality or the ability to establish more personalities. Actions taken by one personality outside of the account (dispatches, forum posts) can be undone or modified by other personalities as if they were the same user.

This would improve the game by lowering the amount of trust needed to have an account shared, and open a new form of account raiding that relies more heavily on speed and skill than dominating an account and taking as much time as you wish.

No. This could be a way for banned users to sneak in.

[New Kvenland]

In light of some widely publicized shared-accounts gone wrong, I would like to bring a suggestion to the attention of Game Admins; Shared Accounts 2.0.

On founding a nation, there is an option to introduce additional 'personalities', separate log-in's that have passwords independent of eachother, with only the original founder having access to permissions to more than one personality or the ability to establish more personalities. Actions taken by one personality outside of the account (dispatches, forum posts) can be undone or modified by other personalities as if they were the same user.

This would improve the game by lowering the amount of trust needed to have an account shared, and open a new form of account raiding that relies more heavily on speed and skill than dominating an account and taking as much time as you wish.

No. This could be a way for banned users to sneak in.

Isn't that what DoS's are for, or am I mistaken?

Also, Chargers FTW

[Nephmir]

If we had the Regional Officers feature, we wouldn't need to share founder accounts.

[Kuduri Federation]

In light of some widely publicized shared-accounts gone wrong, I would like to bring a suggestion to the attention of Game Admins; Shared Accounts 2.0.

On founding a nation, there is an option to introduce additional 'personalities', separate log-in's that have passwords independent of eachother, with only the original founder having access to permissions to more than one personality or the ability to establish more personalities. Actions taken by one personality outside of the account (dispatches, forum posts) can be undone or modified by other personalities as if they were the same user.

This would improve the game by lowering the amount of trust needed to have an account shared, and open a new form of account raiding that relies more heavily on speed and skill than dominating an account and taking as much time as you wish.

Gee I wonder what shared account this is *rest in pasta Tychrome*

[New Raffica]

Regional officers aren't a bad idea at all

[Cornupication]

No. This could be a way for banned users to sneak in.

Isn't that what DoS's are for, or am I mistaken?

Also, Chargers FTW

People sometimes get a single nation DEAT'd as well as a certain length forumban on any and all puppets. This would make it easier to circumvent that.

Personally, I think the current system is fine - share an account at your own risk, and mods shouldn't step in if it is seized by one of the holders. If you're daft enough to give out account details, you don't deserve extra protection.

[Frisbeeteria]

No. This could be a way for banned users to sneak in.

Isn't that what DoS's are for, or am I mistaken?

DoS means "Delete On Sight". So if you hand access to a Founder nation to a DOS player, you lose your founder nation. No argument, no appeal. So no, I think that's a very valid point.

If you're daft enough to give out account details, you don't deserve extra protection.

Pretty much this.

[Indian Empire]

No. This could be a way for banned users to sneak in.

Isn't that what DoS's are for, or am I mistaken?

Also, Chargers FTW

DOS only covers the IP address. They would still have their friends nation's access, access from public areas, etc. The other people would be banned for no reason.

There is no way, I hate the Chargers.

[New Kvenland]

Isn't that what DoS's are for, or am I mistaken?

DoS means "Delete On Sight". So if you hand access to a Founder nation to a DOS player, you lose your founder nation. No argument, no appeal. So no, I think that's a very valid point.

If you're daft enough to give out account details, you don't deserve extra protection.

Pretty much this.

Ah, I see. Thank you, I've been wondering about that.

[The Blaatschapen]

Isn't that what DoS's are for, or am I mistaken?

Also, Chargers FTW

DOS only covers the IP address. They would still have their friends nation's access, access from public areas, etc. The other people would be banned for no reason.

What are you talking about? DoS is more than IP address.

If we spot a DoS person, we delete them. End of story. It is not necessarily limited to IP address. Especially considering dynamic IPs, that would be too easy to circumvent.

[Ballotonia]

Staff discourages people sharing accounts in any way whatsoever. So, it would be a bit odd to implement stuff that specifically supports sharing accounts in some form.

Better approach would be to request functionality which would make it no longer desirable to share accounts in the first place.

Ballotonia

[Bears Armed]

Better approach would be to request functionality which would make it no longer desirable to share accounts in the first place.

Except for the fact that in some cases it might be desirable to share accounts?
For example, the IDU has a Founder whose control has been shared by several nations at any one time ever since the region's foundation in 2004, and careful selection of new sharers has therefore let the region continue to have the security of a Founder in place despite the fact that all of the original owners have since left NS...

[Reploid Productions]

Unfortunately, due to the security risk, site staff will never condone account sharing. We know people are going to do it regardless, but we are never going to support it.

No matter how careful you are about selecting sharers, reality is that the more people with access to an account, the less secure it is. It only takes one jackass to seize the shared account and wreck havoc, and everyone else is screwed because we can't always tell whodunnit. (And when a nation IS shared, it can effectively muddy that trail beyond any hope of untangling it.) Sadly, there are people out there who would be willing to put the time and effort into earning that trust to get into a shared account for that very reason.

Right now, due to the way founders are set up, sharing might be desirable by players as a way to ensure their region has an active founder nation. So, knowing that we're not going to support account sharing, the discussion needs to be "What functions do people share nations for, and what tools would make such sharing unnecessary?"

[Sichuan Pepper]

I believe the core reason players want to share the founder are

- Executive controls (this can be solved once region officers feature becomes available)

- Fear that the founder will become inactive and CTE leaving the region vulnerable to attack. This problem will not be solved unless there is an inheritance system put into place. (again there is risk as the inheritor could be someone that will betray the trust placed in them the same as a shared founder account)
I believe an inheritance system is still a workable solution though.