Why is it so horrible for someone to arrange for his own replacement as long as the replacement is not playing in the same game? Is that not better than having a country go into Civil Disorder?

You may have wanted the player to announce the change over and maybe have the new player have his own account, but it is not like people are playing with their own names here. So what if the player is number 1098 instead of 1097?
So aside from the announcement of the change what is the big deal? Then again if you know the player was a replacement then it sounds like it was announced?

Does the FAQ talk to the issue of finding your own replacement?

um, Edi, i think that the "replacement" is from the same game

but personally i think it is fine to give the password to your allies for a couple of turns. i do this to build up trust, or when i'm busy

the player is 3clips3. I don't think this is as bad as multi-accounting proper because he did not set up the second account. However, now he effectively controls 2 countries

I don't see anything wrong in baby-sitting, that is giving your password to someone not in the game, but it does seem wrong to have one person controlling two countries. It makes it almost impossible to break up an alliance.

That is multi-accounting. Both accounts should be banned,

I disagree that 3clips3 should be banned because he is a good (and usually honest) player and he didn't ask for the password. However I think it would be fair to draw the game where the second account has been abused.

How do you know he didn't ask for it? Maybe I'm just taking too hard a line, but who would take a password and then use it to play two countries in a game, especially when you are already going to win? It seems unsportsmanlike at best.

Playing two countries in the same game is a big NO NO even if it is a temporary approach to a vacation thingee... so in that case the password should not be given to other players in the same game.

I agree, but you can't unsay the password, so...