This topic is locked
What is your suggestion?: Define a Clear Vote Book Limit
Is this in OSRS?: no
Has this suggestion been accepted already?: no
How would this benefit Alora?:
Suggestion: Clarify Rule 17a or Implement a Hard Daily Vote Book Limit
I would like to suggest a revision to Rule 17a regarding vote-book manipulation.
Currently, Rule 17a states:
“Manipulating the voting system to obtain excessive amounts of vote books will result in the punishments above.”
My concern is that the phrase “excessive amounts of vote books” is subjective and does not provide players with a clear understanding of where the line is drawn.
The game already regulates vote-book claiming through a built-in 5-minute cooldown. Because the system itself permits players to continue claiming vote books indefinitely, a reasonable player may assume that any amount obtainable through the game’s mechanics is acceptable.
The issue becomes even more confusing because staff have explicitly stated that using multiple devices to vote is allowed. If multiple devices are permitted, then obtaining additional vote-book authentication codes through those devices is an intended and allowed outcome.
However, players may still be punished for claiming an “excessive” amount of vote books.
This creates a situation where:
* The method is allowed.
* The resulting vote-book codes are obtained through an allowed method.
* The amount that becomes punishable is never defined.
As a result, players are left guessing where the line is.
Without a published threshold, there is no objective standard for players to follow.
I also believe it is important to point out that it is possible to accumulate a large number of vote-book codes without ever using a VPN.
Examples include:
* Using multiple devices that have different IP addresses.
* Switching between Wi-Fi and mobile data.
* Voting from different legitimate networks such as home, work, or school.
Because of this, a player can potentially reach the same result that staff consider “excessive” without ever violating the VPN voting rule itself.
This means that players may be punished based on an outcome rather than a clearly defined prohibited action.
Additionally, the current wording may lead to inconsistent enforcement. One staff member’s interpretation of “excessive” could differ from another’s because no objective numerical limit currently exists.
If Alora already has a maximum amount of vote books that staff consider acceptable, then that limit should be communicated to players. If no such limit exists, then it becomes difficult for players to know whether they are complying with the rule.
I believe one of the following solutions would greatly improve clarity and consistency:
1. Publish a specific daily vote-book limit.
2. Implement a hard in-game cap that prevents players from claiming more than the intended maximum.
3. Rewrite Rule 17a so that it focuses on the prohibited methods being used (VPNs, IP manipulation, etc.) rather than referring to an undefined “excessive” amount.
Personally, I believe a hard cap would be the best solution.
If staff already have the ability to enforce a 5-minute cooldown between vote-book claims, then a daily cap should also be technically possible. This would eliminate ambiguity entirely because players would be physically unable to exceed the intended limit.
A hard cap would also help discourage VPN voting. Players who are currently using VPNs to generate additional vote-book codes would gain little or no benefit from doing so if they were unable to claim more than the daily maximum anyway.
To be clear, I am not suggesting that VPN voting should be allowed. I fully understand why Alora prohibits VPN voting and vote manipulation.
My concern is simply that players should have a clear, objective understanding of what is permitted and what is not. The current rule prohibits obtaining an “excessive” amount of vote books without defining what excessive means, while the game simultaneously allows unlimited vote-book claims through its own mechanics.
Clarifying the limit—or implementing one directly in-game—would make the rule easier for players to understand, easier for staff to enforce consistently, and would reduce incentives for abuse at the same time.
