First off, as a note and general request: This is not the place to be discussing the merits/demerits of clans or other OOC groups. Tom has already stated here that he believes it is time to implement such a policy. This thread will undoubtedly get heated - if you see any of the behaviour displayed by several posters in the "Fontan's Surprising Strength" thread, please use the "Report to Moderator" link at the bottom of the offending post instead of responding to it.So, as stated above via the link provided, Tom believes that it is time to implement an Anti-Clan policy based on the evidence in that thread. I am opening this thread to provide a place for a discussion to take place so that a proposal can be established and submitted. When we reach a point where we have a degree of consensus on the issue, I will edit this post with details of the proposal.
Now, first off, yes I do feel strongly on this issue. I have played games where I had to be up at 6am GMT to attack my opponent without fail in tandem with two other players, and communicate out-of-game via IRC. I also had to orchestrate these attacks as the equivalent of a Marshal/General in BM. Those were generally called "Alliances" in that other game, but they were essentially clans. I don't want to do that all over again. I don't care about losing characters, or losing a war in BM. I do care about losing a war when, as stated by Anaris before, clans have a 1.5x-2x advantage on your average realm.
That, to me at least, goes against the "Fair Play" section of the Social Contract. The question of whether to refer the issue to the Magistrates or Titans has plagued me of late, but I decided not to because seeing what people were capable of in that thread made me think I would become an OOC target - that players would target my in-game family purely because I raised the issue with Tom in the first place or because I dared to challenge their behaviour.
To me, that is part of the wider issue. If you go against an OOC group, you will become a target. And eventually, if nothing is done, you will probably give up and leave what is a very enjoyable game. So, you either submit and let them destroy your fun, or you fight back and risk being marked because of it. So, I say "no more".
To kickstart the discussion, we need to understand what the goal of such a policy would be, why we need one, where it would be placed, and what the punishment is for breaking it. This is just a basic framework, and changes would be welcome. I'll start off with giving my personal answers to these questions.
What is the goal of an Anti-Clan policy?To quote Tom:
The goal needs to be that no realm is ever controlled by any group of OOC friends, no matter if they call themselves clan, not-clan, classmates, family or whatever.
Why do we need such a policy?Simply put, clans can have a polarising effect on the playerbase, usually on the negative end of the spectrum. There are some, like Revan, who argue that they do have some beneficial effects. But the issue is that OOC groups tend to have the goal of working towards power and victory, rather than fun. They may see what they are doing as a lot of fun - but it is at the expense of other players. That is a contravention of the Social Contract, specifically section two. Tom and the Devs have stated before in other threads that this is not a game which is suited for powergaming in even the slightest degree. You can't win BM, that has been said time and time again. We need a policy like this so that we can empower ourselves as the players to stop any OOC group from taking away our enjoyment of the game. By having such a policy, we can enable Tom/The Devs to be able to use the tools at their disposal to help in that aim.
Where would it come under?Part of me believes that it should be an addition to the Social Contract. Rather than creating a completely new document, we already have one which governs how players should behave towards one another. Why not modify the Social Contract to include such a policy, either as an addition to a currently existing section, or a completely new one in its own right. That way it would implement some safeguards (e.g. making accusations with no proof being against the rules).
What would the punishment be for breaking it?I would firstly say that the "one chance" rule is still kept in effect. Tom has warned one specific group of players about 2-3 times about their behaviour, as an example - that should be that one warning used up. After that, action can and should be taken if there is enough evidence that something is clearly wrong. Punishments for breaches of the Social Contract (assuming such a policy is placed there) go from temporary account locks to permanent account locks. That may also include deletion of characters that are proven to be in an OOC group, but I would most likely say that may have to be decided by either the Titans, or the Magistrates.
Over to you.