Account Sitting

[L M S]

OK, so what is the line? Who draws that line? Who enforces that line?

There have been multiple cases brought forth in the recent past, against many a highly respected player, each with a unique and interesting outcome.
Are the rules different for the clan world?
Should they be?
It appears (strongly) as though the standard is different.
Is that good or bad?
I know this is an emotional topic but, there has to be a consensus somewhere.
Is it possible for us to figure this out without beating the hell out of each other over our affiliations?
The C&A Mods seem to say it's not their area.

[Nicky15]

The Cd team will be posting a new set of rules shortly. And I am sure things may get emotional

[L M S]

Maybe the 20 game cap for the CC Cup, for example, should include games sat?

[#1_stunna]

Off topic!!

L M S why is this your favorite game? Game 11812020

[Foxglove]

Maybe the 20 game cap for the CC Cup, for example, should include games sat?

That makes sense.

I think what we really need are specific rules with *numbers* - so that we all know exactly what is acceptable and what isn't. I think Dako said this in the C&A thread as well, and I totally agree. And in addition to that, we need specific consequences for breaking the rules.

I would love to have numbers for what percentage of turns are allowed to be sat in the normal course of a war. Is it ok to predictably have your turns sat 4 weekends per month? 3? 2? 1? 1 fixed day per week? 5 fixed days per month? X turns per Y games? Is it acceptable for the same person to sit all of the turns? What if each weekend is handled by a different person? What if the same person sits games for every person in the clan?

Subjective rules are obviously not creating a lot of goodwill and harmony in the clan world.

[L M S]

Maybe the 20 game cap for the CC Cup, for example, should include games sat?

That makes sense.

I think what we really need are specific rules with *numbers* - so that we all know exactly what is acceptable and what isn't. I think Dako said this in the C&A thread as well, and I totally agree. And in addition to that, we need specific consequences for breaking the rules.

I would love to have numbers for what percentage of turns are allowed to be sat in the normal course of a war. Is it ok to predictably have your turns sat 4 weekends per month? 3? 2? 1? 1 fixed day per week? 5 fixed days per month? X turns per Y games? Is it acceptable for the same person to sit all of the turns? What if each weekend is handled by a different person? What if the same person sits games for every person in the clan?

Subjective rules are obviously not creating a lot of goodwill and harmony in the clan world.

Perhaps we need a 'DH', is that what you are saying? Someone who does the sitting, and only the sitting in clan wars? I had thought about this awhile ago, but decided it would put too much pressure on one person in a war....maybe I was wrong about that.
Sorry for my non-baseball friends...'DH' stands for Designated Hitter.

[L M S]

Off topic!!

L M S why is this your favorite game? Game 11812020

lol, Stunna, nice catch.
That game sealed the TLO for my team, even before we went on to win the last round. We would have won it regardless (since we won our last round), but I watched that particular game very closely - just in case.

[BGtheBrain]

i was expecting discussion in this forum to form the rules that will be applied to all clans regarding sitting.

[L M S]

i was expecting discussion in this forum to form the rules that will be applied to all clans regarding sitting.

AND.....hopefully it stays civil and productive.

[Foxglove]

Maybe the 20 game cap for the CC Cup, for example, should include games sat?

That makes sense.

I think what we really need are specific rules with *numbers* - so that we all know exactly what is acceptable and what isn't. I think Dako said this in the C&A thread as well, and I totally agree. And in addition to that, we need specific consequences for breaking the rules.

I would love to have numbers for what percentage of turns are allowed to be sat in the normal course of a war. Is it ok to predictably have your turns sat 4 weekends per month? 3? 2? 1? 1 fixed day per week? 5 fixed days per month? X turns per Y games? Is it acceptable for the same person to sit all of the turns? What if each weekend is handled by a different person? What if the same person sits games for every person in the clan?

Subjective rules are obviously not creating a lot of goodwill and harmony in the clan world.

Perhaps we need a 'DH', is that what you are saying? Someone who does the sitting, and only the sitting in clan wars? I had thought about this awhile ago, but decided it would put too much pressure on one person in a war....maybe I was wrong about that.
Sorry for my non-baseball friends...'DH' stands for Designated Hitter.

Oh, no - I think that's a terrible idea, actually, to just have one person. I just think these are all things that need to be considered.

I feel like sitting rules for clans should be different than non-clan games, because the stakes are so much higher. A missed turn in a normal game that causes a loss - no big deal, you lose some points. But what if a missed turn in a clan game causes a lost game, which causes a lost war, which knocks a clan out of a year-long tournament? In my mind, that's a big deal. I feel that we should be able to step in for our team mates when necessary.

And to the people who pipe up and say "it's just a game, suck it up" - it's true, it's a game. But a lot of us put a lot of time and energy into this game hobby, because we enjoy it. It's perfectly reasonable to take a hobby seriously, and that's what a lot of clans are about.

[Lindax]

In clan wars and tournaments I personally feel one should expect to play one's opponent, and not a sitter.

Obviously that's not always possible. One thing I did in TLO 2012 IV is: ask the Team Captains not to assign games to players that were going to be absent for a certain time, i.e., holidays, etc.

I think in the tournament that pretty much worked, however, as a TO or even CD it's very hard to check those things because we don't have multi-hunter tools. It was all on a voluntary basis, but I know many Team Captains honored my request.

Lx

[L M S]

Maybe the 20 game cap for the CC Cup, for example, should include games sat?

That makes sense.

I think what we really need are specific rules with *numbers* - so that we all know exactly what is acceptable and what isn't. I think Dako said this in the C&A thread as well, and I totally agree. And in addition to that, we need specific consequences for breaking the rules.

I would love to have numbers for what percentage of turns are allowed to be sat in the normal course of a war. Is it ok to predictably have your turns sat 4 weekends per month? 3? 2? 1? 1 fixed day per week? 5 fixed days per month? X turns per Y games? Is it acceptable for the same person to sit all of the turns? What if each weekend is handled by a different person? What if the same person sits games for every person in the clan?

Subjective rules are obviously not creating a lot of goodwill and harmony in the clan world.

Perhaps we need a 'DH', is that what you are saying? Someone who does the sitting, and only the sitting in clan wars? I had thought about this awhile ago, but decided it would put too much pressure on one person in a war....maybe I was wrong about that.
Sorry for my non-baseball friends...'DH' stands for Designated Hitter.

Oh, no - I think that's a terrible idea, actually, to just have one person. I just think these are all things that need to be considered.

I feel like sitting rules for clans should be different than non-clan games, because the stakes are so much higher. A missed turn in a normal game that causes a loss - no big deal, you lose some points. But what if a missed turn in a clan game causes a lost game, which causes a lost war, which knocks a clan out of a year-long tournament? In my mind, that's a big deal. I feel that we should be able to step in for our team mates when necessary.

And to the people who pipe up and say "it's just a game, suck it up" - it's true, it's a game. But a lot of us put a lot of time and energy into this game hobby, because we enjoy it. It's perfectly reasonable to take a hobby seriously, and that's what a lot of clans are about.

[Vid_FISO]

Whilst there is (probably) little harm in taking a hobby seriously there are always going to be those that take it much more seriously than others, giving the onlookers the viewpoint that they take it too seriously.

If someone is likely to be absent for a period of say 2 weeks due to holidays then they simply shouldn't be entering any team games (including clan wars) or tourneys that are starting a week or so before their holiday (or known time away) is due to start. Something that they could reasonably expect to have ended before their absence when starting games should allow sitters

If someone is unable to log on regularly on specific days (regardless of whether it's weekends or weekdays) then they should not be playing games where others have to rely on them (team games or tourneys), end of and should not be allowed sitters.

For those where something comes up (whether it be for a day or unlimited ongoing) then fair enough for games to be covered to conclusion, TDs should be approached for their take as to whether to remove any given player or allow sitting or for them to bring in a replacement should it be on ongoing issue.

Even with my limited experience of clan wars I've seen that one person has ended up playing nearly every move for his clan in a number of games, it's simply not right, if it were a viable clan then it's members would be playing themselves, not ceding (for whatever reasons) to one or two others after a few moves through to game completion. IF the majority of the clan can't turn up once a day to play their moves then dissolve the clan and those that can should find more reliable team mates.

[jetsetwilly]

Whilst there is (probably) little harm in taking a hobby seriously there are always going to be those that take it much more seriously than others, giving the onlookers the viewpoint that they take it too seriously.

If someone is likely to be absent for a period of say 2 weeks due to holidays then they simply shouldn't be entering any team games (including clan wars) or tourneys that are starting a week or so before their holiday (or known time away) is due to start. Something that they could reasonably expect to have ended before their absence when starting games should allow sitters

If someone is unable to log on regularly on specific days (regardless of whether it's weekends or weekdays) then they should not be playing games where others have to rely on them (team games or tourneys), end of and should not be allowed sitters.

For those where something comes up (whether it be for a day or unlimited ongoing) then fair enough for games to be covered to conclusion, TDs should be approached for their take as to whether to remove any given player or allow sitting or for them to bring in a replacement should it be on ongoing issue.

Even with my limited experience of clan wars I've seen that one person has ended up playing nearly every move for his clan in a number of games, it's simply not right, if it were a viable clan then it's members would be playing themselves, not ceding (for whatever reasons) to one or two others after a few moves through to game completion. IF the majority of the clan can't turn up once a day to play their moves then dissolve the clan and those that can should find more reliable team mates.

Well said, and this is one of the key points in the new rules. We are just finishing them up but they will be posted here in the next day or two.

[L M S]

Whilst there is (probably) little harm in taking a hobby seriously there are always going to be those that take it much more seriously than others, giving the onlookers the viewpoint that they take it too seriously.

If someone is likely to be absent for a period of say 2 weeks due to holidays then they simply shouldn't be entering any team games (including clan wars) or tourneys that are starting a week or so before their holiday (or known time away) is due to start. Something that they could reasonably expect to have ended before their absence when starting games should allow sitters

If someone is unable to log on regularly on specific days (regardless of whether it's weekends or weekdays) then they should not be playing games where others have to rely on them (team games or tourneys), end of and should not be allowed sitters.

For those where something comes up (whether it be for a day or unlimited ongoing) then fair enough for games to be covered to conclusion, TDs should be approached for their take as to whether to remove any given player or allow sitting or for them to bring in a replacement should it be on ongoing issue.

Even with my limited experience of clan wars I've seen that one person has ended up playing nearly every move for his clan in a number of games, it's simply not right, if it were a viable clan then it's members would be playing themselves, not ceding (for whatever reasons) to one or two others after a few moves through to game completion. IF the majority of the clan can't turn up once a day to play their moves then dissolve the clan and those that can should find more reliable team mates.

I don't fundamentally disagree with you I guess.........but it is hardly as black and white an issue as you have described it, at least to my mind. There must be an equitable way to allow everyone to play while removing the opportunity for abuse, perceived or actual.
It starts with well thought out, clearly defined rules and I think input on the rules from those of us that are in the trenches every day is a requirement.