Vastly Improve Account Sitting

[Timminz]

I'd love to see this implemented, but for my own account. An email notification when I'm down to 2 hours in any game would be very useful on those days when life just seems to demand more of my time than I had anticipated.

If implemented for sitters, it would just make the already-happening abuse, even easier to do. Terrible idea.

[Agent 86]

Okay, improving sitter situation.

I propose that from your Control panel you are able to designate 2 sitters. These sitters would be informed by PM if the game was under 4 hrs.

The catch here is they log in under the players name and they use their own password. The reason for this is everyone only has one password and no sharing of passwords. So in game chat we could automatically show that a sitter was playing the turn and logs for this would easily be monitored by Mods.

I'm not sure if this could be programmed or implemented..but at least we are trying to come up with something that is fair and not open to abuse.

86

[Baby-Bjorn]

What I am referring to is other clans who have done this and have been found guilty of doing this. Try reading the C&A reports sometime and you'll see exactly why this suggestion does not answer to the account sitting abuse problems and would, in fact, make it worse.

First, this is not offered as a solution to that problem. It is intended to help those of us who sit legitimately. And I see nothing wrong with helping us honest folk do a vastly better job of sitting.

As for making abuse worse... Nah! That ain't gonna happen and I will tell you why... Those that abuse the system will continue to abuse the system and those who do not will continue to not. The only way this suggestion would increase the abuse problem would be if it somehow magically turned honest folk dishonest. And it just ain't gonna do that!

[Baby-Bjorn]

I'd love to see this implemented, but for my own account. An email notification when I'm down to 2 hours in any game would be very useful on those days when life just seems to demand more of my time than I had anticipated.

If implemented for sitters, it would just make the already-happening abuse, even easier to do. Terrible idea.

Again, I must disagree. Those who abuse any system will always find ways to abuse. Making it easier or more difficult does not increase nor decrease the amount of abuse.

I managed a very large network for a major corporation. We had employees who abused the network and those who did not and I kept statistics on this. No changes made to the network that made said abuse easier or more difficult had any statistically significant impact on the amount of abuse. The only thing I ever found to have any impact was to fire an abuser and let all the employees know that he/she had been fired for abuse. But even that was a fleeting victory as within 4-6 weeks, abuse was back to its normal levels.

From real world experience, backed up by real world statistics, making any system easier or more difficult to abuse has NO effect on the amount of abuse of that system.

[Baby-Bjorn]

The process in it's current state allows for many missed turns that should not be missed.

How so? If you can't take your own turns isn't that the definition of a "turn that should be missed"?

While I agree that an Account Sitting feature is needed, this is not the solution. This does not stop people from letting their turns run low for someone else to take a turn for them while they play other games and are otherwise active on the site/forum. This suggestion also encourages general password sharing which is discouraged by mods and admins regardless of how many clans think it is "mandatory".

I think to answer this question; this suggestion stems from a recent game we were playing where a player went awol and missed 2 turns before we realised he was absent from the site.The team we we're playing felt a little agrieved that now we had 2 turns deffered troops to deploy, because he had a sitter that hadn't signed in untill the third turn, of course through no fault of our own since he had not notified us of and coming absence from the site. Whereas if there was a notification that x is running low on many games you would soon realise the absence. I believe this is what BB's adressing.

In my case i can see it from both sides as i often let some games run low while i ponder the next move...

Realistically not ideal, but certainly a stepping stone. What blake is talking about is the only REAL solution to this since it allows password sharing to be outlawed, and abuse would be easy to track and prove.

Are you any closer to this sort of solution blake, or is a interim measure maybe worth the time?

Nice thought there, but that was not the impetus for this suggestion.

I have been dealing with systems and their associated problems for over 45 years now. Something that is always rolling around my mind is ways to improve any systems I use. [Just ask the support group of every app and system I use ].

When a system functions well, such as the vast majority of the CC system, I find little to improve on. But when a system functions in a less than adequate manner, such as account sitting, then I begin to work on it, thinking of ways in which it might be improved, such as my recent idea of posting my availability on my own wall so my sitters can better evaluate when I am in danger of missing a turn. [examples of said status: BB Status: Hitting the sack - Back in 8 hours or less or BB Status: Here sporadically - should not miss any turns]. This helps but most will not take the time to do such a task.

And I have thought of other ideas and ways to improve the system. But this one would not only work and work well, the programming would not be overly difficult and once that has been done, the entire improvement would operate automatically. So my man, this idea was a result of my penchant to improve all systems that I use, not because of an incident of missed moves.

That being said, all input is good input [IMHO] and that incident entered my mind. It could not be otherwise. But a direct cause of this idea? I don’t think so, but it might have been. I mean when it comes to the system on which our brains operate, very few understand that system

[callmecommander]

Great Idea. Life can get hectic sometimes and this would allow a sitter to get things under control. Only thing is, is that I often know that I'm not going to be able to make a move till the second or even very last hour, but I know that I will be able to take it. There would need to be a way to turn this feature on and off easily.

[Bones2484]

such as my recent idea of posting my availability on my own wall so my sitters can better evaluate when I am in danger of missing a turn. [examples of said status: BB Status: Hitting the sack - Back in 8 hours or less or BB Status: Here sporadically - should not miss any turns]

This is where our two viewpoints on what is allowed differs and will always differ, and it is why I would only be in favor of a more strict account sitting feature along the lines of Blake's idea (though I think that may be TOO strict, but that's another story):

If you are choosing to go to bed and have turns that may be in jeopardy while you are asleep, you are choosing to not play those turns. And because you are choosing to not play those turns, it does not give someone else the authority to go play them for you. This also assumes that someone else in your clan (or maybe multiple people) have your password to use whenever they can which is highly discouraged by the mods and is why so much abuse has happened with others.

[Baby-Bjorn]

such as my recent idea of posting my availability on my own wall so my sitters can better evaluate when I am in danger of missing a turn. [examples of said status: BB Status: Hitting the sack - Back in 8 hours or less or BB Status: Here sporadically - should not miss any turns]

This is where our two viewpoints on what is allowed differs and will always differ, and it is why I would only be in favor of a more strict account sitting feature along the lines of Blake's idea (though I think that may be TOO strict, but that's another story):

If you are choosing to go to bed and have turns that may be in jeopardy while you are asleep, you are choosing to not play those turns. And because you are choosing to not play those turns, it does not give someone else the authority to go play them for you. This also assumes that someone else in your clan (or maybe multiple people) have your password to use whenever they can which is highly discouraged by the mods and is why so much abuse has happened with others.

Yeah and no! I do not CHOOSE to go to bed with any games in jeopardy. However, 1] I have a condition called narcolepsy and IT often chooses my bed time and 2] I have zero control over how long I sleep. Normally it is 8 hours or less but I have no way to control this. So no I am NOT choosing to not play those turns! And, in fact, prefer to play EVERY one of my turns! I love this game my man and there is NO WAY I would ever abuse it and I resent your implication that I am. I am merely trying to improve a great game by making it easier to use the allowable system of account sitting.

So you don't sleep? When you sleep do you CHOOSE to sleep? Do you CHOOSE how long you sleep? Do you have any sitters that might need take one of YOUR turns while you sleep? Yeah, sorry dude but your post is IMHO nonsensical...

[Timminz]

I'd love to see this implemented, but for my own account. An email notification when I'm down to 2 hours in any game would be very useful on those days when life just seems to demand more of my time than I had anticipated.

If implemented for sitters, it would just make the already-happening abuse, even easier to do. Terrible idea.

Again, I must disagree. Those who abuse any system will always find ways to abuse. Making it easier or more difficult does not increase nor decrease the amount of abuse.

I managed a very large network for a major corporation. We had employees who abused the network and those who did not and I kept statistics on this. No changes made to the network that made said abuse easier or more difficult had any statistically significant impact on the amount of abuse. The only thing I ever found to have any impact was to fire an abuser and let all the employees know that he/she had been fired for abuse. But even that was a fleeting victory as within 4-6 weeks, abuse was back to its normal levels.

From real world experience, backed up by real world statistics, making any system easier or more difficult to abuse has NO effect on the amount of abuse of that system.

I'd love to see these "real world statistics". Mind sharing?

Seriously though, "it's okay to make abusing the system easier, because making it more difficult won't deter the abuse", isn't a very good argument.

While we're at it though, we should stop checking for multis, because you know, making it easier to operate multiple accounts isn't going to encourage abuse of the system.

[Baby-Bjorn]

I'd love to see this implemented, but for my own account. An email notification when I'm down to 2 hours in any game would be very useful on those days when life just seems to demand more of my time than I had anticipated.

If implemented for sitters, it would just make the already-happening abuse, even easier to do. Terrible idea.

Again, I must disagree. Those who abuse any system will always find ways to abuse. Making it easier or more difficult does not increase nor decrease the amount of abuse.

I managed a very large network for a major corporation. We had employees who abused the network and those who did not and I kept statistics on this. No changes made to the network that made said abuse easier or more difficult had any statistically significant impact on the amount of abuse. The only thing I ever found to have any impact was to fire an abuser and let all the employees know that he/she had been fired for abuse. But even that was a fleeting victory as within 4-6 weeks, abuse was back to its normal levels.

From real world experience, backed up by real world statistics, making any system easier or more difficult to abuse has NO effect on the amount of abuse of that system.

I'd love to see these "real world statistics". Mind sharing?

Seriously though, "it's okay to make abusing the system easier, because making it more difficult won't deter the abuse", isn't a very good argument.

While we're at it though, we should stop checking for multis, because you know, making it easier to operate multiple accounts isn't going to encourage abuse of the system.

I hate the fact that I cannot produce those statistics for you. But even if I still worked for that company, they would not allow me to share. They consider all such data and information as proprietary because it might give them a competitive edge. So apologies for even mentioning it.

And I see your point on making abuse easier. Case in point, even though it is impossible to stop a hacker from breaking into your network, we worked very hard to put every possible prevention in place.

So then the question that you [and I believe Bones as well] would like addressed here is, will this suggestion, if implemented, make abuse of the system easier? At the moment, I don't know. So, what I will do is to ponder that for a bit, reread all posts here, and get back to you.

I posit that there are differing levels of threats. IMHO, multis are a bigger 'threat' to CC than sitting abuse. would you agree or disagree with that and why?

[Baby-Bjorn]

I'd love to see this implemented, but for my own account. An email notification when I'm down to 2 hours in any game would be very useful on those days when life just seems to demand more of my time than I had anticipated.

If implemented for sitters, it would just make the already-happening abuse, even easier to do. Terrible idea.

Again, I must disagree. Those who abuse any system will always find ways to abuse. Making it easier or more difficult does not increase nor decrease the amount of abuse.

I managed a very large network for a major corporation. We had employees who abused the network and those who did not and I kept statistics on this. No changes made to the network that made said abuse easier or more difficult had any statistically significant impact on the amount of abuse. The only thing I ever found to have any impact was to fire an abuser and let all the employees know that he/she had been fired for abuse. But even that was a fleeting victory as within 4-6 weeks, abuse was back to its normal levels.

From real world experience, backed up by real world statistics, making any system easier or more difficult to abuse has NO effect on the amount of abuse of that system.

I'd love to see these "real world statistics". Mind sharing?

Seriously though, "it's okay to make abusing the system easier, because making it more difficult won't deter the abuse", isn't a very good argument.

While we're at it though, we should stop checking for multis, because you know, making it easier to operate multiple accounts isn't going to encourage abuse of the system.

I hate the fact that I cannot produce those statistics for you. But even if I still worked for that company, they would not allow me to share. They consider all such data and information as proprietary because it might give them a competitive edge. So apologies for even mentioning it.

And I see your point on making abuse easier. Case in point, even though it is impossible to stop a hacker from breaking into your network, we worked very hard to put every possible prevention in place.

So then the question that you [and I believe Bones as well] would like addressed here is, will this suggestion, if implemented, make abuse of the system easier? At the moment, I don't know. So, what I will do is to ponder that for a bit, reread all posts here, and get back to you.

I posit that there are differing levels of threats. IMHO, multis are a bigger 'threat' to CC than sitting abuse. would you agree or disagree with that and why?

OK guys. I pondered… I reread all the posts… I pondered some more… I reread the posts again… I pondered…. And I have my answer, my response… My suggestion will not increase abuse at all! None! Zero increase of abuse! And being the generous soul that I am, I will tell you why

It will not increase abuse because all use of this technique can be MONITORED by the admins!!! Anyone abusing the system by using this method will be caught and appropriate sanctions taken! The guys that figure out how to abuse a system might be many things, but they ain’t stupid! And they won’t use a system that can be monitored for abuse! So guys, this will not increase abuse, not even by a tiny bit.

[Bones2484]

It will not increase abuse because all use of this technique can be MONITORED by the admins!!! Anyone abusing the system by using this method will be caught and appropriate sanctions taken! The guys that figure out how to abuse a system might be many things, but they ain’t stupid! And they won’t use a system that can be monitored for abuse! So guys, this will not increase abuse, not even by a tiny bit.

And where will the admins get enough time to constantly monitor such a tool? Don't you think it would be much more efficient for the site to develop an account sitting tool that doesn't require any monitoring at all?

[Baby-Bjorn]

It will not increase abuse because all use of this technique can be MONITORED by the admins!!! Anyone abusing the system by using this method will be caught and appropriate sanctions taken! The guys that figure out how to abuse a system might be many things, but they ain’t stupid! And they won’t use a system that can be monitored for abuse! So guys, this will not increase abuse, not even by a tiny bit.

And where will the admins get enough time to constantly monitor such a tool? Don't you think it would be much more efficient for the site to develop an account sitting tool that doesn't require any monitoring at all?

It should not be difficult to setup an auto monitor. Just decide what your triggers and thresholds are and let the computer do it. That would actually take less programming effort than doing t6he implementation of the suggestion. Then the auto monitor just PMs the designated admin[s] when it triggers. Easy. I setup a very similar auto monitor that tracked every web site visited by the users and triggered an alert to me when anyone hit 5 porn sites in a calendar month. Our policy was up to 4 in a month could happen by accident. Whitehouse.com got a lot of people who were trying to go to whitehouse.GOV heh. The auto monitor could be set to any threshold. it just read a number in a file. How many users abused the web? In 7 years, just one. And the auto monitor caught him. It was a Saturday [I had the monitor setup to notify me on my PDA]. I looked at the message and immediately called the guys manager and the problem was handled. And once the basic monitor tool was working, it was easy to add different things to monitor for, each with its own triggers and thresholds. For example I monitored for gaming sites and tracked the number of sites visited and amount of time spent on each. Lots of people play games from work. On my network they were 'caught'. That was actually a more pervasive problem than porn.

As for a tool that requires no monitoring, what's your idea? I would love to hear it.

Personally I am a huge proponent of monitoring tools. They take very little time and e3ffort to set up and then you just let them run. You put all the variables into a text file that can be easily edited to change triggers and/or thresholds. Anything that is currently manually monitored can [there are some exceptions] be auto monitored by computers. And as newer and better software tools and techniques continue to evolve, the number of exceptions shrink.

[Brainalack]

I would like something like this for myself.

[Baby-Bjorn]

I would like something like this for myself.

Me too my man! Me too.