jdbush chapcrap [noted]

[Uncle Death]

If you get rid of account sitting and make it against the rules to share your password you eliminate all of this. I put it in suggestions awhile ago and it was defeated by all the abusers. You can eliminate a lot of wasted time and effort by just smartening up and make that a rule.

[happyfeet]

So the real issue here is that chapcrap could have instructed jdbush to mess the game in order for his team to win the game. With regards to the account sitting, being that it was just a few minutes left, and as the main sitter for happyfeet, he had another player take the turn for that game so he wouldn't miss the turn.

Unfortunately, being that the owner and the sitter happens to be on opposing teams, this situation has brought suspicions that jdbush could have sabotaged the game in favor of chapcrap, who happens to be the one who told jdbush to take the turn.

I will note this for future reference. Next time, avoid situations like this. Whether you had something to do with how the way the other person made the turn or not, there will always be some doubt if that turn happens to favor your own team.

the game was not affected by the sitters turn. if you read in game chat our plan was to take out red before he traded. which red took his turn without trading after the sitter. blue is who affected the game by not waiting one more round to take out red as what was our game plan. in this case it was a bad play by blue. he should be more upset by his mistake than trying to get others in trouble for helping.

[happyfeet]

If you get rid of account sitting and make it against the rules to share your password you eliminate all of this. I put it in suggestions awhile ago and it was defeated by all the abusers. You can eliminate a lot of wasted time and effort by just smartening up and make that a rule.

you could do this and expand the time to each from 24 hours to 168 per turn. simply, its a horrible idea since people do have a RL.

[hmsps]

If you get rid of account sitting and make it against the rules to share your password you eliminate all of this. I put it in suggestions awhile ago and it was defeated by all the abusers. You can eliminate a lot of wasted time and effort by just smartening up and make that a rule.

you could do this and expand the time to each from 24 hours to 168 per turn. simply, its a horrible idea since people do have a RL.

Yes people do have RL's so why not just miss a turn. IMO account sitting should be if people are away for 24 hours for whatever reason, no people just dipping into accounts like in this case. Where does it end. Its a fine line between account sitting and account sharing.

[happyfeet]

If you get rid of account sitting and make it against the rules to share your password you eliminate all of this. I put it in suggestions awhile ago and it was defeated by all the abusers. You can eliminate a lot of wasted time and effort by just smartening up and make that a rule.

you could do this and expand the time to each from 24 hours to 168 per turn. simply, its a horrible idea since people do have a RL.

Yes people do have RL's so why not just miss a turn. IMO account sitting should be if people are away for 24 hours for whatever reason, no people just dipping into accounts like in this case. Where does it end. Its a fine line between account sitting and account sharing.

sure if you dont have a teammate missing isnt a big deal but your teammate wont be a teammate with you if you are always missing turns. plus, escalating cards people would accuse you of cheating. say you missed the turn to get an advantage. i find may people on here just want to be cops and not enjoy the game.

[happyfeet]

[Game]11459159 [/Game] hope to see a report on this game. one player with two different sitters. the original account player hasnt even taken a turn yet. both times with more than 15 mins on clock. and flow is there partner. maybe i start a c & a report on this kinda fishy i think.

note: i will not but it seems this kinda of stuff is what people do i think its dumb to point out one time.

[chapcrap]

If you get rid of account sitting and make it against the rules to share your password you eliminate all of this. I put it in suggestions awhile ago and it was defeated by all the abusers. You can eliminate a lot of wasted time and effort by just smartening up and make that a rule.

you could do this and expand the time to each from 24 hours to 168 per turn. simply, its a horrible idea since people do have a RL.

Yes people do have RL's so why not just miss a turn. IMO account sitting should be if people are away for 24 hours for whatever reason, no people just dipping into accounts like in this case. Where does it end. Its a fine line between account sitting and account sharing.

He was away for more than 24 hours... That's why he would have missed turns. Think about it.

King A, if I am someone's sitter and I am playing in a game against them, isn't it more responsible, as a sitter, to have their turn taken rather than let them miss a turn? I don't follow the logic of letting them miss a turn. That seems more detrimental to me than someone taking a turn. And, how would you suggest I avoid the situation? Not play friends who I might sit for? That seems pretty silly. Don't get me wrong, I'm not mad that you noted or anything. By all means, note away. I just don't understand what you think I should have done, other than let turns be missed.

[Flow520]

the game was not affected by the sitters turn. if you read in game chat our plan was to take out red before he traded. which red took his turn without trading after the sitter. blue is who affected the game by not waiting one more round to take out red as what was our game plan. in this case it was a bad play by blue. he should be more upset by his mistake than trying to get others in trouble for helping.

Ok, I will respond to your statements one at a time below:

1. the game was not affected by the sitters turn.

   An opinion which I have shown in previous posts as incorrect. I will show again below.

2. if you read in game chat our plan was to take out red before he traded.

   Correct.

3. which red took his turn without trading after the sitter.

   Correct, red only had 3 cards and did not trade. Red took another card and ended with 4 cards.

4. blue is who affected the game by not waiting one more round to take out red as what was our game plan.

   No, the game plan was to take out red with 4 cards. And it was chapcraps actions which adversely affected the game. See the below discussion:
   

   Round8Board.JPG

   So, I added a link to the picture: Game Board: Round 8. Green's turn. Set at 15.
   
   As requested, here is a screenshot of the board just after I used my set to take out the rest of red. Had the sitter (requested by chapcrap) followed the plan laid out in game chat (deploy 3 on Mexico city and take Bogota) and had it succeeded (which had high probability), then I would have had 6 cards, traded for 15, hit green, and ended turn with 4 cards. Green would not have been able to respond because he only had 2 cards.

   It was a matter of chapcrap (opponent of happyfeet) soliciting a sitter who chose not to roll a 7v3 (~86% chance of success) which would have won the game.
   It was not chapcrap's place to ask an account sitter to sit a game for another player. (Especially considering that chapcrap was an opponent in that game!) There is an absolute conflict of interest regardless of intentions.
   Even happyfeet admits that it was chapcrap (a member of the opposing team) who affected the game by causing his turn to be altered. (See two quotes below)
   

   and yes i would have made this one

   i do admit i probably would have taken the turn different.

   chapcrap's actions (however well intentioned) had an adverse effect on the game.
   
   

5. in this case it was a bad play by blue. he should be more upset by his mistake than trying to get others in trouble for helping.

   This is just an outright lie which happyfeet clearly does not himself believe because he complained to chapcrap shortly after jdbush's flawed turn that, "bush screwed up that game bad". I have the screenshot evidence of that here, though it was conveniently deleted from chapcraps wall shortly after being posted...
   
   Really guys, stop trying to cover each others backs by distorting the truth. King only noted this, so it's not that big of a deal. Just do as King asks:

   So the real issue here is that chapcrap could have instructed jdbush to mess the game in order for his team to win the game. With regards to the account sitting, being that it was just a few minutes left, and as the main sitter for happyfeet, he had another player take the turn for that game so he wouldn't miss the turn.
   
   Unfortunately, being that the owner and the sitter happens to be on opposing teams, this situation has brought suspicions that jdbush could have sabotaged the game in favor of chapcrap, who happens to be the one who told jdbush to take the turn.
   
   I will note this for future reference. Next time, avoid situations like this. Whether you had something to do with how the way the other person made the turn or not, there will always be some doubt if that turn happens to favor your own team.

And another thing, stop trying to paint me as a bad guy when I'm merely presenting factual evidence which points out the impropriety of another player. It's much akin to shooting the messenger and only makes you guys looks bad.

[happyfeet]

lol...flow you are clueless you are the one who altered the game. you were not forced to trade your set. green with two cards was not set up to kill chap until you weakened chap. chap had already played so that cash was out the door. the fact is we wait one more round and take out chap like the plan was the round before. you rushed it lost the game for us. chap did not alter the game. you are so clueless and we could go round and round about what a bad play jdbush did and we can do the same about your play. so please grow up and learn how to play because you lost me points and it doesnt make me happy but im dealing with the fact its a tournament and i knew i would get paired with some noobs such as yourslef.

[Woodruff]

King A, if I am someone's sitter and I am playing in a game against them, isn't it more responsible, as a sitter, to have their turn taken rather than let them miss a turn? I don't follow the logic of letting them miss a turn. That seems more detrimental to me than someone taking a turn.

That's precisely how I view this situation. You were LOOKING OUT for the opposition, not hurting them. However, I think the argument is that you COULD HAVE sent in a patsy to screw the turn up (if you were predatory...and frankly, we have some of those on this site). There are certainly some names on this site for whom I could see that strategy being something they'd want to do. So I suppose the "noted" is appropriate, even though I don't really agree with it in this particular instance.

[Vid_FISO]

Surely the person that apparently knew he'd likely be away for 24 hours or more also knew he was playing in a game with his sitter and would potentially miss a move there and should himself have organized someone else for that game?

Also, why didn't the friends knowing that there was a likelihood of a move being missed not simply slow the game down by playing their own moves a few hours later?

[crispybits]

I think the question with this, which relates to the rules as posted previously, is "did happy ask anyone to cover his games for any specific period of time?". If the answer is yes and that came within the time his turn was taken then fair enough, even if his sitter was chapcrap who had to call in a backup sitter.

If the answer is no, then it's account sharing, because there wasn't a sit organised for a period of time when happy would be away from the PC. If others have his password (or any other password) and are logging in just because the games are getting low on time then that's account sharing. Effectively all acounts that any small group of people (be they RL friends or not) share passwords for effectively become multis owned by several players if there is no defined period for which the account-sit is valid for.

The above is perfectly consistent with the rules. Account sitting is not meant as having people there to take your turns whenever you are in danger of missing them at any time over weeks, months and years, they are there for when you know you'll be away and change to a temp password and organise a sitter for a defined period of time.

Let me remind that Account sitting is only for situations where the player is in danger of missing his turn. It is not for the purpose of safeguarding someone's games, 24 hours/day for as long as you want, nor is it for people who will intentionally not take their turns so that their account sitter or clan mate can take the turn for them. It is not a 24/7 responsibility of anyone to look after the games of their friends or clan mates as this can be seen as account sharing where more than one person is already freely logging in to one account whenever these people want to. You can only take this too far.

How would the people defending this action show the difference between this and account sharing? i.e what is the difference between player A having player B's password and logging in whenever a turn is short on time and taking the turn and player A having player B's password and logging in whenever he likes to take turns? Both are cases where the details of an account are shared, the passwords of an account are shared, and the turns of an account are shared 24/7 whenever it suits A and B to do so for an indefinite period of time.

[Flow520]

lol...flow you are clueless you are the one who altered the game. you were not forced to trade your set. green with two cards was not set up to kill chap until you weakened chap. chap had already played so that cash was out the door. the fact is we wait one more round and take out chap like the plan was the round before. you rushed it lost the game for us. chap did not alter the game. you are so clueless and we could go round and round about what a bad play jdbush did and we can do the same about your play. so please grow up and learn how to play because you lost me points and it doesnt make me happy but im dealing with the fact its a tournament and i knew i would get paired with some noobs such as yourslef.

Oh happyfeet.... it's so frustrating when you mix in some truths with your lies because it takes so much longer to properly address. Fortunately, this is basically the same deeply flawed set of statements you made before. I'll refer you to my previous post.
Also, do yourself a favor and stop with the name calling. Really, it just makes you look bad.

[chapcrap]

Let me remind that Account sitting is only for situations where the player is in danger of missing his turn. It is not for the purpose of safeguarding someone's games, 24 hours/day for as long as you want, nor is it for people who will intentionally not take their turns so that their account sitter or clan mate can take the turn for them. It is not a 24/7 responsibility of anyone to look after the games of their friends or clan mates as this can be seen as account sharing where more than one person is already freely logging in to one account whenever these people want to. You can only take this too far.

How would the people defending this action show the difference between this and account sharing? i.e what is the difference between player A having player B's password and logging in whenever a turn is short on time and taking the turn and player A having player B's password and logging in whenever he likes to take turns? Both are cases where the details of an account are shared, the passwords of an account are shared, and the turns of an account are shared 24/7 whenever it suits A and B to do so for an indefinite period of time.

I already responded to that earlier. If you read the whole thread, you would have known that and not maybe not made this post. And if you don't agree with my post earlier, then you can reply to that instead of ignoring it. Sitting doesn't have to be planned. Maybe you should bold this part:

Let me remind that Account sitting is only for situations where the player is in danger of missing his turn.

And another thing, stop trying to paint me as a bad guy when I'm merely presenting factual evidence which points out the impropriety of another player. It's much akin to shooting the messenger and only makes you guys looks bad.

You're doing more than pointing out facts. That's why happyfeet is upset with you. You're making assumptions and stating opinions as well.

Yes, everyone has agreed that bush did not read chat and did not follow the plan you laid out. Not disputed. However, your play led to the loss. You left me with one territory and it was right next to my teammate. How can you try to say that was a good play? We aren't trying to cover for each other (assumption). There's no need for that when nothing wrong was done. The picture of the game you posted isn't even what was requested. GoranZ requested a picture from before my last turn. There is not a conflict of interest by me (assumption). Having another sitter play instead of me isn't a conflict of interest at all. It's helpful.

Maybe you wouldn't get painted as the bad guy if you weren't coming off like a sore loser who can't admit he made an awful play that cost his team the game.

[crispybits]

That's fine. I don't really disagree with king achilles there. I don't think this falls into that. He was in danger of missing his turn. And I wasn't watching his account 24/7. Someone brought it to my attention that he was in danger because they were his teammate in a game.

This is not some crazy sitting scheme or anything like that. No one tried to sabotage anything. Flow is just mad because the sitter made a bad play and didn't read chat.

Is this the answer you were talking about chapcrap?

It still doesn't answer the question. How is having someone's permanent password and the ability to jump onto the account at any time over days or weeks or months, regardless of if they are in danger of missing a turn or how often you actually use it, different from sharing that account? Account sitting is for when someone knows they will be away for a while, changes to a temporary password and gets 1 or more people to watch his account for a defined time period. NS's post, whch was quoted earlier and which King a agreed with (which nullifies your "it's only NS, he's no authority" as he's been backed up as correct BY an authority) states this quite clearly.

For your own good, please do take note of this:

Account sitting is supposed to only be used when people know ahead of time that they will be away from the computer and can change their password to a temporary one for the duration of the account sitting. Jumping into everybody's turns simply because they might miss is utterly ridiculous

This is different, because you have the permanent password, there is no definite time period. Effectively if 3 people all have each other's permanent password, and are willing to jump onto each other's account whenever it suits them to do so (like, for instance, if someone is running short on time), then that's not 3 people and 3 separate individual accounts, it's a 3 account multi account shared between 3 different people.

It is not for the purpose of safeguarding someone's games, 24 hours/day for as long as you want

this can be seen as account sharing where more than one person is already freely logging in to one account whenever these people want to

[chapcrap]

First of all, don't put quotes around something like I said it unless you're going to give an exact quote and not what you think you remember the quote was.

Having passwords isn't account sharing. Account sharing is dependent upon the activity on the accounts. Just because passwords are known, does not mean I'm hopping on anyone's account whenever I feel like it. That does not happen. If it did, I agree with you that it should be punished. But, it's like king a said, if someone is in danger of missing a turn, that's when it's ok. And if you look back, I was not paying attention to his account 24/7. I was alerted to his low time by someone who was a teammate of his in a game.

Clearly, I'm not logging in whenever I feel like it. And, if was I did was against the rules, it would have been more than noted. So, I don't think quoting NS or king achilles or anyone else is necessary. When there is a ruling in place, you can see what the rules are.

[jgordon1111]

I cant believe this is still going,after KA has made his ruling,Flow you want your points back invite me to 4 1vs1 games and see if you can get them back,will that make this better?

[Lindax]

Since this is still going anyway: What's with the higher standards for TeamCC Members? Does that not apply anymore?

And having passwords is pretty much the same as "account sharing", because the "activity on the accounts" often can't be measured. Not to mention the fact that the only "activity" should be taking a turn when in danger of missing it.

Lx

[crispybits]

First of all, don't put quotes around something like I said it unless you're going to give an exact quote and not what you think you remember the quote was.

Having passwords isn't account sharing. Account sharing is dependent upon the activity on the accounts. Just because passwords are known, does not mean I'm hopping on anyone's account whenever I feel like it. That does not happen. If it did, I agree with you that it should be punished. But, it's like king a said, if someone is in danger of missing a turn, that's when it's ok. And if you look back, I was not paying attention to his account 24/7. I was alerted to his low time by someone who was a teammate of his in a game.

Clearly, I'm not logging in whenever I feel like it. And, if was I did was against the rules, it would have been more than noted. So, I don't think quoting NS or king achilles or anyone else is necessary. When there is a ruling in place, you can see what the rules are.

First of all - I did exactly what I just did here, and find your post and hit the quote button. Care to look back to the first page, second last post before you accuse me of something I didn't do....

You have the password and you are able to log into someone else's account whenever you feel like it. You felt like it at this time because you got a message saying happy was low on time. But that shouldn't be a 24/7 option for you over weeks and months, that should be something that only happens when happy knows he is going away (on holiday for instance, like he did 2 months before this thread started) and changes to a temporary password. If between all the quotes from senior staff saying that the sharing of permanent passwords and using them whenever you feel like it, and not just during a defined holiday/break sitting period, is abuse and you STILL don't get it... I despair.

Ignoring jdbush's account, because there's nothing here to implicate it (as in no explicit admission that he permanently has happy's password and wasn't handed it by you to take the turn in this game), then at the very least happy's account is permanently shared, and is a (semi-)multi of your own. And that is only going by the admissions you and happy have made yourselves in this thread.

[chapcrap]

Since this is still going anyway: What's with the higher standards for TeamCC Members? Does that not apply anymore?

And having passwords is pretty much the same as "account sharing", because the "activity on the accounts" often can't be measured. Not to mention the fact that the only "activity" should be taking a turn when in danger of missing it.

Are there different rules for TeamCC? I didn't think so. And having passwords isn't account sharing. Nice try. If it was, a lot of people would be in trouble.

First of all - I did exactly what I just did here, and find your post and hit the quote button. Care to look back to the first page, second last post before you accuse me of something I didn't do....

Well, that's not what you did. Let me show you:

(which nullifies your "it's only NS, he's no authority" as he's been backed up as correct BY an authority)

See, that's not how I said it. You put something in quotations, like I said it that way and I didn't. I choose my syntax, I don't need you goofing it up.

You have the password and you are able to log into someone else's account whenever you feel like it. You felt like it at this time because you got a message saying happy was low on time. But that shouldn't be a 24/7 option for you over weeks and months, that should be something that only happens when happy knows he is going away (on holiday for instance, like he did 2 months before this thread started) and changes to a temporary password. If between all the quotes from senior staff saying that the sharing of permanent passwords and using them whenever you feel like it, and not just during a defined holiday/break sitting period, is abuse and you STILL don't get it... I despair.

No, I get it. You're just wrong. I understand that you think you're right, but you clearly aren't. As I already told Lindax above, if it were a lot more people would be in trouble. There are a lot of examples of this happening and C&A being aware and it hasn't been punished because it's not account sharing. I'm sorry you have a misconception of the rule.

Ignoring jdbush's account, because there's nothing here to implicate it (as in no explicit admission that he permanently has happy's password and wasn't handed it by you to take the turn in this game), then at the very least happy's account is permanently shared, and is a (semi-)multi of your own. And that is only going by the admissions you and happy have made yourselves in this thread.

No multis, no sharing. I'm sorry you aren't getting your way, but it's just not against the rules.

[crispybits]

OK I apologise, although "NS isn't an authority round here" and "it's only NS, he's no authority" seem pretty much paraphrases with identical meaning to me.

As for the rest, it's clear we're going to have to agree to disagree, but I'd be curious to know where you think the line is that makes this different from illegal account sharing. Because I view account sharing as something along the lines of "more than 1 person permanently having the permanent login details to the same account and both/all of those people use these details on a regular (but not necessarily frequent) basis". It seems pretty clear to me that there must be a limited duration and temporary password from the quotes from both NS and king a, and that permanent arrangements like this are what are frowned upon and considered abuse of the sitting system.

[Symmetry]

Since this is still going anyway: What's with the higher standards for TeamCC Members? Does that not apply anymore?

And having passwords is pretty much the same as "account sharing", because the "activity on the accounts" often can't be measured. Not to mention the fact that the only "activity" should be taking a turn when in danger of missing it.

Are there different rules for TeamCC? I didn't think so. And having passwords isn't account sharing. Nice try. If it was, a lot of people would be in trouble.

First of all - I did exactly what I just did here, and find your post and hit the quote button. Care to look back to the first page, second last post before you accuse me of something I didn't do....

Well, that's not what you did. Let me show you:

(which nullifies your "it's only NS, he's no authority" as he's been backed up as correct BY an authority)

See, that's not how I said it. You put something in quotations, like I said it that way and I didn't. I choose my syntax, I don't need you goofing it up.

You have the password and you are able to log into someone else's account whenever you feel like it. You felt like it at this time because you got a message saying happy was low on time. But that shouldn't be a 24/7 option for you over weeks and months, that should be something that only happens when happy knows he is going away (on holiday for instance, like he did 2 months before this thread started) and changes to a temporary password. If between all the quotes from senior staff saying that the sharing of permanent passwords and using them whenever you feel like it, and not just during a defined holiday/break sitting period, is abuse and you STILL don't get it... I despair.

No, I get it. You're just wrong. I understand that you think you're right, but you clearly aren't. As I already told Lindax above, if it were a lot more people would be in trouble. There are a lot of examples of this happening and C&A being aware and it hasn't been punished because it's not account sharing. I'm sorry you have a misconception of the rule.

Ignoring jdbush's account, because there's nothing here to implicate it (as in no explicit admission that he permanently has happy's password and wasn't handed it by you to take the turn in this game), then at the very least happy's account is permanently shared, and is a (semi-)multi of your own. And that is only going by the admissions you and happy have made yourselves in this thread.

No multis, no sharing. I'm sorry you aren't getting your way, but it's just not against the rules.

Dude, this kind of obfuscation is what got you into this trouble. Just be clear about what you're doing behind the scenes so that everyone in the game knows what's happening.

As a mod you shouldn't just be enforcing the rules, you're kinda considered to be the kind of player that doesn't exploit their grey areas.

[happyfeet]

Dude, this kind of obfuscation is what got you into this trouble. Just be clear about what you're doing behind the scenes so that everyone in the game knows what's happening.

As a mod you shouldn't just be enforcing the rules, you're kinda considered to be the kind of player that doesn't exploit their grey areas.

again you say something stupid. congrats!!!

[chapcrap]

@crispy, see the CoF case. That's sharing.

Dude, this kind of obfuscation is what got you into this trouble. Just be clear about what you're doing behind the scenes so that everyone in the game knows what's happening.

As a mod you shouldn't just be enforcing the rules, you're kinda considered to be the kind of player that doesn't exploit their grey areas.

I was very clear about what I did. I didn't lie, deceive, tell half truths or anything. So, maybe stop trying to twist this into something it's not.

I'm not exploiting anything. But, as someone who doesn't play games, you probably wouldn't understand that.

I'm done talking about this here. There clearly weren't any rules broken. Have a discussion in the discussion forum if you like.

[Symmetry]

@crispy, see the CoF case. That's sharing.

Dude, this kind of obfuscation is what got you into this trouble. Just be clear about what you're doing behind the scenes so that everyone in the game knows what's happening.

As a mod you shouldn't just be enforcing the rules, you're kinda considered to be the kind of player that doesn't exploit their grey areas.

I was very clear about what I did. I didn't lie, deceive, tell half truths or anything. So, maybe stop trying to twist this into something it's not.

I'm not exploiting anything. But, as someone who doesn't play games, you probably wouldn't understand that.

I'm done talking about this here. There clearly weren't any rules broken. Have a discussion in the discussion forum if you like.

I have no power whatsoever to twist this into anything it is not. I couldn't if I tried.

It is what it is, and the mods made a decision.

At this point I can only justify my responses, and i do so out of courtesy. I want to justify my posts, and to point out that they were ultimately correct.

You behaved in a dodgy manner, but didn't strictly break the rules.

That seems like a very fair ruling.