The Official Clan Sitting Rules (Old Version)

by **Vid_FISO** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 12:33 pm

chemefreak wrote:Okay. Don't you people have anything better to do? Like play some other player's turns?

Nope, fancy a 1v1?

by **[RFA]Juggalo** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 12:42 pm

Honestly, this all sounds like a big joke. No im not saying that simply to whine and complain, as i do not sit or ask for sitters. To me this is a joke because you are butting specifically into the clan war field, which you may say "we wanna bring back under the blanket of total rule blah blah blah" as the "lines in clan activities have become blurred" but what is the real issue here. The only thing i can think of is people are complaining about losing clan wars BECAUSE someone is sitting? that is just stupid. If there is another reason please let me know, because i cannot think of another good reason to simply butt in and go "well gee guys you all need more rules, even though you are obviously capable of handling your own events and wars". It is kind of ridiculous to try and wrest power away from the people who are doing these events and wars. If anything, it should simply be let the clans decide what is fair amongst themselves. No one makes anyone play anything. Not to mention that you are taking isolated cases and blowing them out of proportion. This all seems like a vast overreaction to something that isnt a huge problem. Ive been doing clan wars since 2007, and have never once seen a "gross abuse" of the sitting rule. Nor have i ever felt i lost a game due to sitters. Seriously sounds like someone got butthurt about losing or not having total control over something, so lets all overreact and throw more rules into the mix, cuz that always solves all the problems. Oh wait no, the other thing, it doesnt, thats right. :roll:

by **Funkyterrance** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 1:32 pm

betiko wrote:
lol, so for you if one of your opponent takes a turn for a clanmate that has disapeared he is gaining an unfair advantage on you? That's funny, because I'd rather say that if an opponent misses a turn I gain an unfair advantage on him, as you know, you haven't eliminated that player yet the gameplay is doing so for 1 round(mostly on an escalating where missing a turn can be game over). Because this guy had something he had to attend to or whatever, means screw his team, and screw his clan. The opponent has just received the magical righ to play 2 back to back turns because they deserved it! then pops up this moron covering for his partner because he knows he's gonna miss, unfair advantage!!!

This is a crazy stance you are taking.
You are saying that the person who takes his own turn is gaining an unfair advantage over a person who doesn't take his own turn. That's nonsense.

Tbh, it just sounds like the lot of you are spoiled. You are used to being able to brush off your turn-taking responsibilities and someone will always break your fall. Besides, in this modern age there are computers everywhere. Heck, I can take turns from my phone on a bathroom break or even borrow my friend's phone if I have to (not in the bathroom scenario). If your clan has people in it who regularly miss turns then your clan is obviously weak. Honestly, whenever I am in a clan game and someone fills for someone else it really makes the person who missed look like a schmuck/weak player. Incidentally, it's almost always a more skilled player who does the filling in. The player who is in danger of missing is obviously just a warm body to fill a slot anyway and probably contributes zero to the game at hand.
A clan should consist of a group of players, not a small percentage of people pulling the puppet strings of all the rest. Let's imagine a clan war in real life. If there were 5 warriors who were completely fit and strong and the rest were just average citizens they would be slaughtered for sure. Also, if some warriors didn't show up for battle, the stronger warriors can't pick up their slack. So as far as missing turns: Suck it up cupcakes? Just admit your weaknesses and accept your standing in light of this.

by **macbone** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 1:49 pm

See, here's the issue here. Conquer Club is a casual gaming site. It wasn't created to be a huge time-sink as I understand it. In a regular terminator-standard game, sure, it won't kill you to miss a turn (unless it's the final sweep in an Escalating game, but still, tough).

But with clans, it becomes more competitive, and say what you will, missing a turn costs your team. Yeah, this isn't super serious stuff, but I for one don't want to be the guy that makes my clan lose a game, and clan wars are decided all the time by the margin of one game.

Turn sitting has never been ruled illegal, and in fact guidelines are in place to allow it under certain situations, such as when a player is on vacation or is in danger of missing the turn. This has never been ruled against the rules.

What is a problem is when one player is taking difficult turns for other players, especially in the context of a clan war when caps are in place on the maximum number of games a player is allowed to play in. This is where the casual side of CC conflicts with the competitive side.

For those of you who have never had a turn sitter, I commend you. But personally, I don't want to disadvantage the teams I play on and potentially cause them to lose because I ended up with a bunch of meetings and couldn't take my turns at 1 pm during lunch like I had planned to earlier in the day, or my family decided to spend the day together at the space museum and I didn't want to spend fifteen minutes on my ipod catching up on my games. If Conquer Club wants to be simultaneously casual and competitive, it ought to have room both for the guy who can't always take his turn and doesn't want his team to lose and the guy who can't always take his turn and doesn't mind missing (and hopefully, he's playing on the opposite team from me (= ).

by **uckuki** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:32 pm

Funkyterrance wrote:If there were 5 warriors who were completely fit and strong and the rest were just average citizens they would be slaughtered for sure.

Not if they were Samurai. They'd cut 'em up left and right.

by **Funkyterrance** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:06 pm

uckuki wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:If there were 5 warriors who were completely fit and strong and the rest were just average citizens they would be slaughtered for sure.

Not if they were Samurai. They'd cut 'em up left and right.

Well, that's debatable.

Let's take the example of 25 barbarians vs. 5 Samurai and 20 peasants. Which clan is your money on?

by **Funkyterrance** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:09 pm

macbone wrote:See, here's the issue here. Conquer Club is a casual gaming site. It wasn't created to be a huge time-sink as I understand it. In a regular terminator-standard game, sure, it won't kill you to miss a turn (unless it's the final sweep in an Escalating game, but still, tough).

But with clans, it becomes more competitive, and say what you will, missing a turn costs your team. Yeah, this isn't super serious stuff, but I for one don't want to be the guy that makes my clan lose a game, and clan wars are decided all the time by the margin of one game.

Turn sitting has never been ruled illegal, and in fact guidelines are in place to allow it under certain situations, such as when a player is on vacation or is in danger of missing the turn. This has never been ruled against the rules.

What is a problem is when one player is taking difficult turns for other players, especially in the context of a clan war when caps are in place on the maximum number of games a player is allowed to play in. This is where the casual side of CC conflicts with the competitive side.

For those of you who have never had a turn sitter, I commend you. But personally, I don't want to disadvantage the teams I play on and potentially cause them to lose because I ended up with a bunch of meetings and couldn't take my turns at 1 pm during lunch like I had planned to earlier in the day, or my family decided to spend the day together at the space museum and I didn't want to spend fifteen minutes on my ipod catching up on my games. If Conquer Club wants to be simultaneously casual and competitive, it ought to have room both for the guy who can't always take his turn and doesn't want his team to lose and the guy who can't always take his turn and doesn't mind missing (and hopefully, he's playing on the opposite team from me (= ).

Here's the thing, mac : you're an honest guy. If everyone in every clan was like you I could care less and anyone could cover for anyone. It's the rotten apples that are causing these rules to be enacted and their presence, unfortunately, can't be ignored.

by **crispybits** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:13 pm

macbone wrote:See, here's the issue here. Conquer Club is a casual gaming site. It wasn't created to be a huge time-sink as I understand it. In a regular terminator-standard game, sure, it won't kill you to miss a turn (unless it's the final sweep in an Escalating game, but still, tough).

But with clans, it becomes more competitive, and say what you will, missing a turn costs your team. Yeah, this isn't super serious stuff, but I for one don't want to be the guy that makes my clan lose a game, and clan wars are decided all the time by the margin of one game.

Turn sitting has never been ruled illegal, and in fact guidelines are in place to allow it under certain situations, such as when a player is on vacation or is in danger of missing the turn. This has never been ruled against the rules.

What is a problem is when one player is taking difficult turns for other players, especially in the context of a clan war when caps are in place on the maximum number of games a player is allowed to play in. This is where the casual side of CC conflicts with the competitive side.

For those of you who have never had a turn sitter, I commend you. But personally, I don't want to disadvantage the teams I play on and potentially cause them to lose because I ended up with a bunch of meetings and couldn't take my turns at 1 pm during lunch like I had planned to earlier in the day, or my family decided to spend the day together at the space museum and I didn't want to spend fifteen minutes on my ipod catching up on my games. If Conquer Club wants to be simultaneously casual and competitive, it ought to have room both for the guy who can't always take his turn and doesn't want his team to lose and the guy who can't always take his turn and doesn't mind missing (and hopefully, he's playing on the opposite team from me (= ).

Then the players who are competitive should get together and be as ultra-competitive as they want, and if that matters to them then they won't miss 99.999% turns even if they don't have sitters. And the casual players will team up with the casual players and if people miss turns well it's just a bit of fun and nobody really cares if the odd game gets dropped for it.

But if a group of players wants to be competitive, then invites a bunch of casuals who only want to play when it's convenient for them to their team, then they should accept the consequences of that, in that turns will occasionally be missed, and should probably think hard about if they want to use those players for the competitive games.

And if someone is a casual player and they want to join the competitive arena, then they should accept that they will have to prioritise it higher than before and make sure they make time and opportunity to take all of the turns that entails.

But to say that the competitive players should be allowed to have use of casual player's accounts, knowing that those casuals will go AWOL from time to time and will miss turns, and then assume they can account share those accounts to play out the games that matter to them whenever they want..... that's just screwed up.

by **Funkyterrance** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:19 pm

crispybits wrote:But if a group of players wants to be competitive, then invites a bunch of casuals who only want to play when it's convenient for them to their team, then they should accept the consequences of that, in that turns will occasionally be missed, and should probably think hard about if they want to use those players for the competitive games.

I love this paragraph. Well put.
If you've got riders on your coattails, they ought to weigh you down a little.

by **Keefie** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:22 pm

I have absolutely no problem with these rules at all. HH have never abused account sitting, we have never logged into other clan mates accounts to check fog games and if there is an odd missed turn then so what.

Personally I'd take this thing one step further and ban account sitting. It would be a darn site easier for everyone.

by **Funkyterrance** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:26 pm

Keefie wrote:I have absolutely no problem with these rules at all. HH have never abused account sitting, we have never logged into other clan mates accounts to check fog games and if there is an odd missed turn then so what.

Personally I'd take this thing one step further and ban account sitting. It would be a darn site easier for everyone.

I'm fine with this as well. Account sitting makes for laziness and rule bending all around. It's not worth the aggravation.

by **IronWood** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:45 pm

I say whatever.... you guys are making an issue out of something that shouldn't be an issue. If I need somebody to sit for my account (which BTW, I never have)... but if I did, I'm not going to be held to some arbitrary rules.

by **Funkyterrance** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:57 pm

IronWood wrote:I say whatever.... you guys are making an issue out of something that shouldn't be an issue. If I need somebody to sit for my account (which BTW, I never have)... but if I did, I'm not going to be held to some arbitrary rules.

So no reason to consider whether or not it's against the rules? Lovely.
The rules aren't really that "arbitrary", as everyone keeps parroting. In fact, they seem to made with accountability in mind.

by **crispybits** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 5:01 pm

Arbitrary rules like the ones you agreed to follow when you signed up for this site?

Are all rules you don't agree with arbitrary and to be broken whenever you feel like it?

by **ahunda** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 5:03 pm

Ban account sitting ? You guys are losing all sense of proportion ...

After years of clan gaming we have accumulated the insane amount of 2 (in words: two) documented cases of account sitting abuse in C&A, only one of which was actually ruled "Guilty". This thread here is full with people saying they & their clans have never engaged in this kind of behaviour, and yet there is mass hysteria & people seeing suspected cheating around every corner.

I remember a clan challenge, where a player of the other clan was kicked out of all his active games, because he was banned from the site. So all you people would probably have said: Oh yeah, serves this clan right, their fault, suck it up. We on the other hand said, we will not punish an entire clan of friendly & fair players for the wrong-doings of one black sheep, and if this challenge comes down to 1-2 games in the end, we won´t have it said, we won only because of this incidence, and so we allowed the other clan to re-make the concerned games.

You can translate this 1:1 to a case, where a player goes awol in the middle of a challenge, because of a RL emergency (happened to us in our last challenge). You want to have a 40-60 game challenge with 40-50 participating players be decided by something like that ? Maybe the finals of a year long tournament like the Conquerors Cup ? Or maybe an entire Clan League season ?

This here borders on group psychosis ...

by **jghost7** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 5:06 pm

macbone wrote:See, here's the issue here. ...
Turn sitting has never been ruled illegal, and in fact guidelines are in place to allow it under certain situations, such as when a player is on vacation or is in danger of missing the turn. This has never been ruled against the rules.

What is a problem is when one player is taking difficult turns for other players, especially in the context of a clan war when caps are in place on the maximum number of games a player is allowed to play in. This is where the casual side of CC conflicts with the competitive side.

...

This.
CC already has guidelines for account sitting. If changes need to be made for account sitting, then they should be addressed site wide. There should not need to be two sets of rules for this. You are either within the rules or you aren't.

The real issue behind this whole debacle is hardly even being addressed in this thread. The only attempt to cover the issue is Basic Rules 2 and 4. All of the rest should be erased and more specific efforts be placed to try to fix the problem. Perhaps a direct and more specific approach should be considered.

I do not think trying to add more rules to the rule will accomplish anything positive. It just creates more confusion and controversy. It will also add more unnecessary work for the CDs to sort through.

I also see this being used as a reason to arbitrarily address whatever issues the CD's happen to have at the time. As with previous attempts from the CD's office to lay down the law, a semi-vague set of superfluous and redundant rules that they can use to penalize clans at their discretion. This allows them to pick and choose who gets the ax and who slides at their whim.

Don't get me wrong. I do respect the efforts they have made thus far in helping in the clan arena, and even to take the time to try to address the perceived problem. However, I do not believe that this is the answer, indeed it will probably prove to be counter productive in the end.

Thanks,

J

by **crispybits** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 5:23 pm

Why is it losing all sense of proportion to contend that if a clan puts one name down on a team sheet for a game that the player named should be the one playing that game?

Compare it to Davis Cup tennis. If Rafa Nadal is half way through a game and falls and breaks his arm, he isn't able to complete that game. Sure Spain can bring in a sub for other scheduled games that havent yet started, but they can't decide to let David Ferrer step into the Nadal match at 1 set all and 4-2 to Spain and have him finish. They just forfeit that game due to Nadal not being able to continue, suck it up, and do their best to win the rest.

Maybe if players not being able to take their own turns is such a problem for competitions containing hundreds of game sand taking months to play out is such a problem then clans should adapt and play shorter competitions with less games and less players involved. Do clan wars need to be epic sagas with this any games over this much time? Why not have the strongest 5 hardcore never miss a turn players from each clan go head to head? Why allow for huge grey areas in the rules for everyone just so clans can have these ridiculously oversized contests?

And the rules apply the same to all - any clan is equally likely to lose a player for a bit. In the end the contests won or lost due to missing players would even out surely? or the clan with the most reliable players would come out slightly ahead, just like any sports team with the least injury-prone star players will have an advantage on the ones that are always in the physio room.

by **Funkyterrance** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 5:49 pm

ahunda wrote:Ban account sitting ? You guys are losing all sense of proportion ...

After years of clan gaming we have accumulated the insane amount of 2 (in words: two) documented cases of account sitting abuse in C&A, only one of which was actually ruled "Guilty". This thread here is full with people saying they & their clans have never engaged in this kind of behaviour, and yet there is mass hysteria & people seeing suspected cheating around every corner.

The 2 cases were documented by sheer luck in that the accused got sloppy. This is not the sort of thing that happens very day. Who is to know this isn't just a glimpse of what lies beneath. There are plenty of grounds for suspicion.

ahunda wrote:I remember a clan challenge, where a player of the other clan was kicked out of all his active games, because he was banned from the site. So all you people would probably have said: Oh yeah, serves this clan right, their fault, suck it up.

Yes! That person was a member of your clan, you chose him/her for whatever convenient reason and you can't just drop all accountability because it affects your clanwar. Why is this concept of accountability so elusive? This is just another example of how deeply the rot of this whole issue has spread. "Why should my clan lose because one of my members is a jackass and got himself banned?" Hmm, let me think about that... Your clan recruited him/her in the first place and furthermore added him/her to your clanwar games. Of course this should affect the outcome of your war.

ahunda wrote:You can translate this 1:1 to a case, where a player goes awol in the middle of a challenge, because of a RL emergency (happened to us in our last challenge). You want to have a 40-60 game challenge with 40-50 participating players be decided by something like that ? Maybe the finals of a year long tournament like the Conquerors Cup ? Or maybe an entire Clan League season ?

Yes. Your clan as a whole got bad luck, just like what can happen with the dice. Maybe that person shouldn't have been so heavily booked in your games that it greatly affects the whole war? I don't know. Suck it up and accept responsibility. So some players ranks drop, so you lose the war. So what? These are all parts of being in a clan in the first place ; you are affected by the actions of your fellow clansmen.

You all are acting like a bunch of people who turned in their book reports late and are hurt because your teacher deducted points. There's nothing unfair about any of these new developments, It just looks like you don't like the rug being pulled out from under you.

If you want your clan to be represented by only your strongest players, cull the herd or recruit better players. Just don't expect those who have been playing by the rules all along to be sympathetic when your buffer of an advantage is taken away.

by **ahunda** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:08 pm

Nowhere did I say, that the player assigned to a game should not be expected to play the game. What I am saying, is: RL shit happens, fact of life, and sometimes a player will not be able to take turns/play the game he was assigned to. For this very reason CC allowed account sitting.

I mean, seriously, get a grip on your perspective: You are only talking about cheating & abusing the system. But what about all the legitimate reasons for account sitting ? Someone being ordered on a business trip with very short notice, someones child being hospitalised, someone losing Internet connection because of a storm, etc. pp.

These things happen. This is not the Davis Cup, and we are not professional full time CC players. We do have real lifes, jobs, families, that - if you have your priorities straight - should come first, before a casual online game.

The problem is not account sitting. The problem is abuse of account sitting to gain a strategic advantage. You guys got carried away so far in this thread, that you seem to see account sitting = abuse. And as I pointed out, from the simple facts we have so far (documented cases of abuse), I don´t understand, why. You seem hysteric & over-reacting.

Funkyterrance even lost the most basic reading comprehension skills, as my example of the banned player referred to a player of the opposing clan, not mine. And so he of course completely missed the entire point I was trying to make: I would dislike winning a challenge, because someone on the other side dead-beated in 3 games, just about as much as I would dislike losing, because one of my clan-mates had some emergency come up.

Guys, get this clear: I don´t mean to defend abuse & unfair game-play. But let´s be reasonable, how to address the issues. You are really going amok here, and your proposed measures (i.e. all-out ban of account sitting) would ruin CC for many of the more casual players, who do have RL commitments.

EDIT: Wow, on second reading I actually find Funkyterrances post border-line insulting.

Funkyterrance wrote:Just don't expect those who have been playing by the rules all along to be sympathetic when your buffer of an advantage is taken away.

Wtf are you implying here, man ?

by **azezzo** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:15 pm

Nicky15 wrote:
azezzo wrote:What a bunch of crap, only on vacation?, only within the last hour b4 a turn expires, Really?
Why only on vacation? In my own life, I work 12-16 hour days without advanced warning from my employer sometimes and have texted my team mates to cover my turns for me, or how about if your power goes out and you lose internet for awhile, why not call for help from a clan member to cover for you? Adding rules upon rules does not make this game / site any more enjoyable, If I am asked to cover for a team mate, or vice versa, why should I sit home and wait to play his turn at the last hour, I see nothing wrong with simply making sure the turn is not missed. I really dont see these 2 issues as being anything to worry about in clan games, its clan against clan, so in my opinion, so long as a clan member is playing, I dont care who it is, or when it is.

Now you are taking this too literally. If you have been asked to cover then that is a different story. It is when a player has gone awol that this hour rule applies. You can't simply jump into someones account and take turns when it suits you. This borders on account sharing. If you have had no contact from the player involved, how do you know they wont be taking their turns? The hour mark has been set as this is a fair indicator that a turn actually is in danger of being missed. This rule is also in place to stamp out the practice that it is ok to leave turns and others will pick them up for you. Everyone should become responsible for their own accounts. Having said all this if you are constantly requiring a sitter and not taking your own turns, then you should not be entering games.

The players on the team sheet should be the ones who actually play the game. Not just anyone from the clan. What is to stop Clans from fielding teams then getting the best player in the clan to take their turns for them. Do you want to play vs a few people or play a clan.

If C.C. is going to make rules they should be taken litterally, it was stated that ip addresses were going to be monitored, I agree that you shouldnt be allowed to jump into someones account without being asked, but how is c.c. gonna know one way or the other?, as far as who's subbing, its a non-issue so long as its a fellow clan member

by **SirSebstar** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:27 pm

a pattern will quickly emerge when ip checks reveal a particular player to often sit for another player in clanwars. or e.g. a particular player misteriously use'd the same proxy as another "known" player. in the end, when they go looking, there are smoking guns everywhere of acces that should not be.
incidental is.. more or less acceptable. intentionally getting the system to go haywire for your pleasure is not.

bottom line is, you can play a lot, but dont make a mess. ( play your own account, unless you really cannot)

by **pearljamrox2** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:31 pm

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=442&t=156203&start=45#p3612265

by **Funkyterrance** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:54 pm

ahunda wrote:Nowhere did I say, that the player assigned to a game should not be expected to play the game. What I am saying, is: RL shit happens, fact of life, and sometimes a player will not be able to take turns/play the game he was assigned to. For this very reason CC allowed account sitting.

I mean, seriously, get a grip on your perspective: You are only talking about cheating & abusing the system. But what about all the legitimate reasons for account sitting ? Someone being ordered on a business trip with very short notice, someones child being hospitalised, someone losing Internet connection because of a storm, etc. pp.

These things happen. This is not the Davis Cup, and we are not professional full time CC players. We do have real lifes, jobs, families, that - if you have your priorities straight - should come first, before a casual online game.

The problem is not account sitting. The problem is abuse of account sitting to gain a strategic advantage. You guys got carried away so far in this thread, that you seem to see account sitting = abuse. And as I pointed out, from the simple facts we have so far (documented cases of abuse), I don´t understand, why. You seem hysteric & over-reacting.

Funkyterrance even lost the most basic reading comprehension skills, as my example of the banned player referred to a player of the opposing clan, not mine. And so he of course completely missed the entire point I was trying to make: I would dislike winning a challenge, because someone on the other side dead-beated in 3 games, just about as much as I would dislike losing, because one of my clan-mates had some emergency come up.

Guys, get this clear: I don´t mean to defend abuse & unfair game-play. But let´s be reasonable, how to address the issues. You are really going amok here, and your proposed measures (i.e. all-out ban of account sitting) would ruin CC for many of the more casual players, who do have RL commitments.

EDIT: Wow, on second reading I actually find Funkyterrances post border-line insulting.

Funkyterrance wrote:Just don't expect those who have been playing by the rules all along to be sympathetic when your buffer of an advantage is taken away.

Wtf are you implying here, man ?

This wasn't meant to be directed at anyone in particular but those who are partaking in sitting abuse know what I'm referring to. It does stand to reason that those who are griping the loudest are the ones who are going to be most dramatically affected by the changes. Why should anyone so strongly object to all this?

What is being drawn out of this issue, to me, is that when an account is being sat, especially in the clan environment, someone else is controlling that account. They may be strategizing, they may be peeking, they may be running the show. Who is to know? Normally when you sit for someone who has an "emergency" you do just that: you sit. You don't affect the game with your personal superior strat, you just try to leave the game more or less as you left it so that when the person comes back they can pick up where they left off. Anything more that this moves into the area of abuse because the person filling in is adding to the pot so to speak. This is the same reason why it's not Ok to log onto someone's account and give tips for strat in a foggy game.
To use your own words: "This isn't the Davis Cup". You're right, its the conquer cup. It's not real life so missing a turn is not such a big freaking deal and it's worth the trade-off if it means less cheating, even if its a small percentage. I don't want to play against any cheaters/rule benders as their mere presence is a stain on this site.
As far as my reading comprehension with your example I don't think it matters whose side had the missing player.

by **greenoaks** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:00 pm

crispybits wrote:Then the players who are competitive should get together and be as ultra-competitive as they want, and if that matters to them then they won't miss 99.999% turns even if they don't have sitters. And the casual players will team up with the casual players and if people miss turns well it's just a bit of fun and nobody really cares if the odd game gets dropped for it.

But if a group of players wants to be competitive, then invites a bunch of casuals who only want to play when it's convenient for them to their team, then they should accept the consequences of that, in that turns will occasionally be missed, and should probably think hard about if they want to use those players for the competitive games.

And if someone is a casual player and they want to join the competitive arena, then they should accept that they will have to prioritise it higher than before and make sure they make time and opportunity to take all of the turns that entails.

But to say that the competitive players should be allowed to have use of casual player's accounts, knowing that those casuals will go AWOL from time to time and will miss turns, and then assume they can account share those accounts to play out the games that matter to them whenever they want..... that's just screwed up.

Keefie wrote:Personally I'd take this thing one step further and ban account sitting. It would be a darn site easier for everyone.

you two should be running the show.

by **stahrgazer** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:41 pm

crispybits wrote:Arbitrary rules like the ones you agreed to follow when you signed up for this site?

Are all rules you don't agree with arbitrary and to be broken whenever you feel like it?

Thing is, crispy, the only "account sitting" rule I signed up for when I signed up for this site was not to abuse it; but abuse wasn't defined as, "you can't take the turn for the account you've agreed to sit unless there's less than 1 hour left to play or you received three people's permission in advance."

When rules are "overkill" they are arbitrary. When rules state within the rules themselves that the rules will not be enforced across the board, then they are arbitrary.

Every once in a while when I'm sitting for someone who's on vacation, I forget to post that I'm the one taking the turn. Oops, my bad - I'm sure I'm not the only one who's ever forgotten that, either. But now these are part of the "Official clan sitting rules" that will cost the clan the game? Or, someone in authority will say, "okay, stahr, it's okay in your case," while telling someone else it wasn't okay.

It's arbitrary and it's overkill.

Also, when I'm scheduled to account sit, and know it, I take the turn at my convenience. If that means I start the game because it's convenient, with ten hours left to play, I'm not going to reschedule my day to make sure I return in nine hours to start the game... and with these rules, if this occurs and I didn't ask daddy's permission, or daddy wasn't around to okay it in advance, it's now going to cost the clan the game? Or, someone in authority will say, "okay, stahr, it's okay in your case," while telling someone else it wasn't okay.

Again, arbitrary and overkill.

These types of things are not abuse. If it always happens, or happens a ton, sure, then it's probably abuse. Then again, it could be that someone's work schedule suddenly went haywire so needs account sitting alot more than was thought, in which case it's once again NOT abuse. Reasonable clan members will then say, "sorry, can't participate in the next round after all," if they know it's going to happen.

But, really, to come up with this arbitrary set of rules that will be arbitrarily enforced is overkill unless clans really believe this sort of thing is happening close to 50% of the time.

And if that's the case, then why not outlaw clan wars while we're at it, that'd end clan war abuse for sure. Right? :lol: