Conquer Club

The account sitting process is fraught with difficulties. I think this idea would tremendously improve that process. The process in it's current state allows for many missed turns that should not be missed. If Player X has informed me he will be gone tomorrow then no problems, but if he has a real life issue and is just not able to log in, then most times I will not know he is missing turns. This suggestion solves that problem.

Concise description:

I suggest that we be able to submit players and time thresholds [in hours] that you wish to be notified about. Then when that player reaches the threshold in any game CC would send you an automated PM with the player name, game # and time remaining.

Specifics/Details:

To better visualize, here is an example:

Player: General Brock II, Threshold: 4

When he hit 4 hours remaining in any game I would get a PM like:

General Brock II, Game 123456, Time remaining 3:59:42

Then, if I am an authorized sitter for him, I can take his turn for him. And if I am not, I will not have his password and cannot take his turn. This second case is a "no harm no foul" situation as the info CC sent me is freely available and can be mined using Game Finder. Though Game Finder is clumsy to use for such a purpose.

CC would not need to track authorized sitters and would not care if you are an authorized sitter or not. That would be handled by the current password process.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

The process in it's current state allows for many missed turns that should not be missed. If Player X has informed me he will be gone tomorrow then no problems, but if he has a real life issue and is just not able to log in, then most times I will not know he is missing turns. This suggestion solves that problem.

I'm with BB on this one. Very clever idea that would definitely help with the sitting process. It would also eliminate the necessity of logging into an absent player's account to see how much time they have left. Rather, you can see the pm that informs you when they've only got an hour left.

How much programming could this possibly take?

Great idea!

Baby-Bjorn wrote: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".

The account sitting feature I've been looking for (for the better part of three years I might add), allows you to define one person that can control your games for a specified period of time (eg. Sitter between Today and Next Tuesday -- or with dates). During this time you can't take any turns on your own account unless you cancel the sitter (When the sitter period starts, you would recieve a link in your email or something along those lines). The sitter won't have any access to forums/PM's/etc, and the sitter also won't be able to create or join games, with the sole exception of accepting invites for Tournament games (Technically in the current system, clan war games are Tournament Games). While sitter mode is active, the active sitter's username will appear beside the user's name in all game log and game chat's. There would also be protection to make sure someone can only sit for you if you don't have any games against each other (eg team games wouldn't count for this). Password sharing would then be against the rules, and sitters would be very easy to track this way. There would also be a limit that you can only activate sitter mode for two weeks or some arbitrary number like that.


</ramble>

Bones2484 wrote:

Baby-Bjorn wrote: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 don't know who you sit for, but if someone I sat for was off doing something else on CC while I took their moves, I would first eviscerate them for being a butthead, then I would refuse to sit for them again, change their status from friend to foe, and finally, I would report them to the admins!

The people I sit for miss turns due to REAL LIFE problems and issues! NOT because they are playing other games.

I think you need to get yourself a better class of friends!

BB

Baby-Bjorn wrote:

Bones2484 wrote:

Baby-Bjorn wrote: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 don't know who you sit for, but if someone I sat for was off doing something else on CC while I took their moves, I would first eviscerate them for being a butthead, then I would refuse to sit for them again, change their status from friend to foe, and finally, I would report them to the admins!

The people I sit for miss turns due to REAL LIFE problems and issues! NOT because they are playing other games.

I think you need to get yourself a better class of friends!

BB

Do you really expect clan mates to do that to each other? And people could argue it anyways "Oh, but I was waiting on my other teammates to give some notes on teh game, and didn't realize it got so low!"

TheForgivenOne wrote:

Baby-Bjorn wrote:

Bones2484 wrote:

Baby-Bjorn wrote: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 don't know who you sit for, but if someone I sat for was off doing something else on CC while I took their moves, I would first eviscerate them for being a butthead, then I would refuse to sit for them again, change their status from friend to foe, and finally, I would report them to the admins!

The people I sit for miss turns due to REAL LIFE problems and issues! NOT because they are playing other games.

I think you need to get yourself a better class of friends!

BB

Do you really expect clan mates to do that to each other? And people could argue it anyways "Oh, but I was waiting on my other teammates to give some notes on teh game, and didn't realize it got so low!"

Not sure who you are asking your question of. If it is me, I expect they will NOT do that.

Bones2484 wrote:

Baby-Bjorn wrote: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?

Baby-Bjorn wrote:
I suggest that we be able to submit players and time thresholds [in hours] that you wish to be notified about. Then when that player reaches the threshold in any game CC would send you an automated PM with the player name, game # and time remaining.

I think you could do the same thing pretty informally through the clans, at least the competetive ones (might not work as well for social clans). Or, you could even start a clan just for this purpose. You could have a standing rule that basically just lets people take other people's turns if they have less than x time left. Each person could designate who they wanted to have that authority, etc.

A bigger problem is that not everyone has CC friends to play for them. This is particularly true for newer people, but if you are talking about a more or less permanent permission, could apply to older players also. Among other reasons, people come and go here a lot, we may select one person for some types of games and someone else for other types, etc. This won't really solve that.

Bones2484 wrote:

Baby-Bjorn wrote: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 this is a great idea, I do like the idea of pm's and think its a good short term solution. I do think Blake's program is a great ultimate solution. On top of what Bones says, I do not think that you should be able to sign in on more than one computer at any given time. Maybe when you sign in it kicks out the previous login which will get rid of the idea that a sitter and account holder can be on at the same time...

blakebowling wrote:The account sitting feature I've been looking for (for the better part of three years I might add), allows you to define one person that can control your games for a specified period of time (eg. Sitter between Today and Next Tuesday -- or with dates). During this time you can't take any turns on your own account unless you cancel the sitter (When the sitter period starts, you would recieve a link in your email or something along those lines). The sitter won't have any access to forums/PM's/etc, and the sitter also won't be able to create or join games, with the sole exception of accepting invites for Tournament games (Technically in the current system, clan war games are Tournament Games). While sitter mode is active, the active sitter's username will appear beside the user's name in all game log and game chat's. There would also be protection to make sure someone can only sit for you if you don't have any games against each other (eg team games wouldn't count for this). Password sharing would then be against the rules, and sitters would be very easy to track this way. There would also be a limit that you can only activate sitter mode for two weeks or some arbitrary number like that.


</ramble>

MegsEggs wrote:
I think this is a great idea, I do like the idea of pm's and think its a good short term solution. I do think Blake's program is a great ultimate solution. On top of what Bones says, I do not think that you should be able to sign in on more than one computer at any given time. Maybe when you sign in it kicks out the previous login which will get rid of the idea that a sitter and account holder can be on at the same time...

Its not a matter of signing in on more than one computer, just more than one window.

I have actually done this because I took advantage of pauses in my games (even waiting for a speed game to start, for example) to sit a friend's account. Even so, it I would agree except that I think its a pretty easy restriction for tech-saavy people to get around, if they really wish. I don't see that as a huge problem, really.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

MegsEggs wrote:
I think this is a great idea, I do like the idea of pm's and think its a good short term solution. I do think Blake's program is a great ultimate solution. On top of what Bones says, I do not think that you should be able to sign in on more than one computer at any given time. Maybe when you sign in it kicks out the previous login which will get rid of the idea that a sitter and account holder can be on at the same time...

Its not a matter of signing in on more than one computer, just more than one window.

I have actually done this because I took advantage of pauses in my games (even waiting for a speed game to start, for example) to sit a friend's account. Even so, it I would agree except that I think its a pretty easy restriction for tech-saavy people to get around, if they really wish. I don't see that as a huge problem, really.

A new window, I suppose. I have tried sitting and waiting on my own turns in different tabs, but it always logs me out of my own (or vice versa). It should certainly be considered poor courtesy to do both at once. If one is to sit, it should only be one account at a time.

Baby-Bjorn wrote:The people I sit for miss turns due to REAL LIFE problems and issues! NOT because they are playing other games.

I think you need to get yourself a better class of friends!

BB

Nice of you to try to turn that around on me when I don't have that problem. No on in G1 has ever taken a turn for someone that wasn't requested.

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.

I think this wouldbe a good idea, iknow some people think if you can not manage your games then tough luck, but real lide does sometime get in the way!
Like what eddie said I think BB has raised this because of the recent war that we had and the other Clan was not happy with the missed turns, it got a bit messy as it was very close and this was the game that would more or less decide the outcome!
There are many ways how this could work:
CC could come up with a program where if you have 1 min left then CC would take a turn for you. there would be no attack just a deply on a random area, this would stop people from deadbeating like they do on Nuke games!
Like what BB said a PM would go out 2 or 4 hours before the missed turn, im sure they could have some limitations built into this like it can only be done in Clan games or team games!

There are lots of things that can be done to inprove this and what ever does get decided it is not going to please everyone.

Thanks

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.

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

Bones2484 wrote: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!

Timminz wrote: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.

Ickyketseddie wrote:

Bones2484 wrote:

Baby-Bjorn wrote: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

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.

Baby-Bjorn wrote: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.

Bones2484 wrote:

Baby-Bjorn wrote: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...

Baby-Bjorn wrote:

Timminz wrote: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.

Timminz wrote:

Baby-Bjorn wrote:

Timminz wrote: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?