If such rules are implemented and enforced, I do hope they apply to all players, all of them, mortals and wizards alike.
Regarding the Facebook page: if it's public domain, and someone mentions what is readily available to everyone - how would this rule apply?
Regarding Kvator's comment and its relation to Kitriana's: This is commonly done in Genesis. We all know it. How should players deal with such things? Should they consider it roleplay even if it becomes so blatantly obvious that it feels as an insult to one's intelligence?
I believe that revealing characters in a game such as ours is bad form, and that it is also bad form for players to use their other personas to benefit their main and push an agenda. Players have developed over the course of years a way to deal with this kind of behaviour (granted, while creating other kinds of undesirable behaviour), and if one of the two is outruled, it gives the other an advantage.
Let's take a step back, sit on a comfortable armchair, and ask ourselves why this happens at all, and if a simple rule, hoping it is upheld and applied, will be sufficient to transform the mentality of our community, a mentality so ingrained and characteristic of it that whenever a person performs as expected or even beyond our expectations, we grow suspicious of who it could be.
Do we do this to protect ourselves? Do we do this out of curiosity? Do we hold grudges we wish to transfer from one persona to another? Do we want to develop a friendship with the person behind the keyboard? Do we notice a behavioral pattern we wish to avoid? Is a friend back from a hiatus and we're excited to see them? Is someone who betrayed us once trying to reestablish a connection under a new guise? How do we reconcile real life meet-ups with roleplay? Are we able to see the world completely through the eyes of the character we play? How good are we, really, at roleplaying? As good as professional actors? How do we define roleplay? It is such a concept we throw around back and forth without a proper definition that it is often as if two persons discussing it had very different ideas of it. Are we at such a developed psychological level that we can create an alternate persona and completely detach it from our own, being morally just and fair within our roles?
These questions are not meant to diminish the rule or question it, but rather inspired not only by the rule itself but by the concerns expressed in response to it.
I know. The rule is simple. Don't do it, and you'll be okay. Sounds easy. Though changes such as these do raise up questions and spark a debate, not only whether or not this is a good solution (even if it's not a democracy, people still voice their opinions), but also why this, out of other problems mentioned here and even if they are related, is being handled by a concrete rule while the rest are tolerated even if known. Where do we draw the line? Do we require a consensus to draw a line, or is it a call that only the administration has the priviledge (and burden) of making?
In any case, I do hope that the administration has the time, means, and determination to pursue the enforcement of this and all rules, and that the interest doesn't wane in time or become difused with exceptions until it fades to grey and ends up being perceived as selective justice.
You see a mousetrap. I see free cheese and a challenge.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?