Hi, I received this message when creating a game:

Rules:

1. You shall be respectful to other players at all times.

2. Racist language, personal attacks, excessive profanity, or offensive language will not be tolerated.

3. You shall not operate more than one Warzone account that participates in the same game, tournament, ladder, clan war, or in any way gives you an advantage or gives you points or coins.

Violation of these rules could result in suspensions, banning and/or forfeiture of all coins tied to any accounts you accessed. Please consult the terms of service for more info.

I presume this means I got on someone's bad side, although I can't think whom. If so, wouldn't it make sense to inform me of the context of receiving this note, rather than just leaving me in dark?

Thanks.

Nope, Fizzer updated the rules, and now everyone must click I accept again :rolling_eyes:

It also popped to me.
Even though, I am not surprised.

I just got the message when posting in my clan's chat box

I'm so happy that the rules for alts are now neatly described!
It's linked to Clan Wars being rolled out, see https://www.warzone.com/blog/index.php/2021/03/update-5-10-clan-wars/

Oh i was confused by that

re: rules for alts: Are 2v2/3v3/etc. game/tourney/ladder teams with alts now prohibited?

My understanding was that you could have alts in the same game or tourney or ladder as long as they were on the same team. The new wording makes it sound like that is no longer the case. Can you clarify, Anon/Fizzer? Would AI/CleverTacticButFail/R=U/I get in trouble if they did a 3v3 solo ladder run today?

Hmm weird, it did indeed lose the phrasing of "in a way that gives you an advantage over other players"

Yes the "or" seems to change the meaning of the sentence but the change log doesn't suggest this was the intent.

Given other wording mishaps in the rules/ToS and the overall confusion when attempting to predict the enforcement of certain rules, it would be great if we could get some more concrete guidelines as to what Fizzer and the mods will actually enforce. Especially regarding alts. Preferably something more predictable and actionable than referring us to common sense.

If I were to join a 3v3 game today where one team was just me on different accounts, would that violate the alt rules? (And the same question for the ladder)

Edited 3/9/2021 21:36:39

It seems to have dropped the no-alt rule. but adopted a stricter rule with regards to how you can use alts.

Old rules:


New rules:

The problem is "or in a way" implies that, OR the former are no-nos. Before it was explicitly allowed for me to play on the 2v2 ladder with an alt, it seems it now is not unless Fizzer removed the word or.

So...
Our clan has 40 player limit. Few good players join the clan as alts because they either want to have friendly chat or help train newbies etc.

Does that mean, that they can't participate in clan wars, so clans are encouraged to kick alts to make place for non-alts?

yep, as it is currently formulated a 2v2 game with your own alt is no longer legal. Fizzer should really rephrase that line.

The problem is "or in a way" implies that, OR the former are no-nos. Before it was explicitly allowed for me to play on the 2v2 ladder with an alt, it seems it now is not unless Fizzer removed the word or.

Yes, Nauz, or it could just be an unintended implication. Fizzer was rolling out a huge update, had a lot of things to do, and it's plausible that he didn't intend to actually change the rules this way- he was probably just updating it to add "clan wars" to the list of no-nos for alt abuse- and the sentence says something he didn't mean for it to. This is not a knock on Fizzer. It's just something I suspect might've happened.

We have precedent in the form of other unintended wording implications in the rules and ToS. For example, a careful reading of the Spam rule in the ToS suggests that the only thing that counts as "spam" on Global Chat is a solicitation. But it's obvious that's not what Fizzer meant.

That's why I'm asking to clarify.

Edited 3/9/2021 21:46:59

Does that mean, that they can't participate in clan wars, so clans are encouraged to kick alts to make place for non-alts?

This was always the point of the limit. I still dont see how a cap on clanmembers is going to help the Clan Wars, since CW has its own cap for the old clans...

Currently this has resulted in mostly idle-only players being kicked from clans (since clans had nothing to offer them) in favor of keeping a few alts around (either for fun or to help out with various things)

Ehm.
There is a difference between
1) having a cap of 40 players
2) having a cap of 40 players and cap of 40 players who can join an event

yes, but the cap for the event is understandable to keep it fair for everyone

but why the cap on clans?

Cap on clans kinda makes sense to encourage people to play warzone classic (since else they are kicked from clan).
It also encourages people to play the game more or less regularly (same reason, almost no one wants people who are active once a week, especially if the clan wants to be good at clan wars).

I'm so happy that the rules for alts are now neatly described!

Then explain the apparently obvious semantics?

So now I can't play vs myself in 1v1 anymore?