josko.ri & Moonchild [Noted] DCR

[Leehar]

Game number(s):
Game 11960055*
11960154 - This one does not seem to be the correct game number.

Game 11960054

Lucky guess by transposing the 1

The salient point is indeed that " Josko for Moonchild '' has happened an awful lot , that is indisputable and it is in the interests of all that it stops forthwith.

It is why this accusation is relevant, but doesn't necessarily have to be wrong.
The concern would be that this is an indication of Account Sharing, but I'm sure josko and co have done their utmost to try stay within the rules and morals of the guidelines, while being constrained by Moonchilds availability.
If anyone else had done the sitting, would there have been a problem? Perhaps not, since I suspect the primary issue is that it's josko doing the sitting, and thereby using it as a mechanism for gain

[Chariot of Fire]

Game number(s):

Game 11960113*
Game 11960055*
11960154 - This one does not seem to be the correct game number.
Game 11926485*
Game 11895784*
Game 11895783*
Game 11895782
Game 11859148
Game 11859147*
Game 11673703*
Game 11665183
Game 11590571
Game 11590570*

Thank you, fixed (Lee was right).

[Foxglove]

I'm sure it was totally and definitely an oversight due to his zealous enthusiasm to file this report, but there are several lies, untruths, fabrications - call them what you will - in CoF's original post. Some are mentioned previously in this thread, but these are the ones that have been identified so far (and no doubt additional exaggerations and untruths will follow):

1. Lacking internet access for 2 days per week is 28% of a week, not 38%.

2. "Game 11926485 - ... Also in this game josko covered for Sir Sebstar in Round 1 - yet by remarkable coincidence Sir Sebstar was able to return to CC just 41 minutes later and post here: viewtopic.php?f=37&t=135788&p=3961622#p3961622"

The difference between the turn and the forum post is 1481 minutes, not 41. A full day + 41 minutes.

3. "Gaining an unfair advantage in complex unlimited fort games" - the numbers prove this to be untrue.

Josko's score in unlimited team games (Triples+Quads) without Moonchild in team: 20/22 (91%)
Josko's score in unlimited team games (Triples+Quads) with Moonchild in team: 27/37 (73%)

Josko's score in all settings team games (Triples+Quads) with Moonchild in team 147/194 (76%)
Josko's score in all settings team games (Triples+Quads) total 263/353 (75%)

By these numbers, we would do best to not allow Moonchild to ever play in Josko's unlimited games. We have clearly received no advantage from doing so.

[comic boy]

Game number(s):
Game 11960055*
11960154 - This one does not seem to be the correct game number.

Game 11960054

Lucky guess by transposing the 1

The salient point is indeed that " Josko for Moonchild '' has happened an awful lot , that is indisputable and it is in the interests of all that it stops forthwith.

It is why this accusation is relevant, but doesn't necessarily have to be wrong.
The concern would be that this is an indication of Account Sharing, but I'm sure josko and co have done their utmost to try stay within the rules and morals of the guidelines, while being constrained by Moonchilds availability.
If anyone else had done the sitting, would there have been a problem? Perhaps not, since I suspect the primary issue is that it's josko doing the sitting, and thereby using it as a mechanism for gain

There are 2 issues at hand here , the first is that Moonchild is entering ( or being entered ) into games in the full knowledge that he will likely not be available for certain turns. This may not constitute cheating but it surely goes against the spirit of the game and I cannot believe that admin would not wish to remark on this.
The second issue is rather more sinister , the question of whether the sitting has been manipulated to gain advantage. Consider that these games happen to be on Joskos favoured settings , that the sitting often occurs on the crucial first turn and that it is always Josko who takes the turn . Lets be honest its too regular and consistent to be a coincidence , advantage is being taken !

[Chariot of Fire]

>Sir Sebstar. I'm not mistaken in my calculations. You were posting in the forum just 41 minutes after your turn would have expired. Hence my comment 'yet by remarkable coincidence' as it serves as another example of josko covering the opening move in an unlimited forts game in addition to the one he had already played - in the same game - for Moonchild.

It was a time when both josko and Moonchild were under the Croatia flag - so who actually knows how long this sitting has gone on for - yet with the former's move to Japan and under a different flag it's another remarkable coincidence perhaps that Moonchild no longer has Internet other than from his workplace and that there's a standing arrangement for josko to cover him at all other times.

And to those who wish to quibble about the 38%......either we take josko's word that Moonchild only has access to CC from work (which from 9am Monday to 5pm Friday is 62% of the week, hence 38% unavailable) or by your very own definition you're unwittingly implying that he can in fact spend longer than this at taking his own turns and therefore josko's sitting may have been unnecessary.

The crux of the matter here is since when is it acceptable to keep fielding a player who is so regularly absent and to keep doing so for a period of, to date, three months? And had I not brought this to light how much longer would this convenient arrangement have gone on for? From now on can all clans start entering 'part time' players into their team games and have their best player cover one third of the time in perpetuity? No, thought not.

[Chariot of Fire]

I'm sure it was totally and definitely an oversight due to his zealous enthusiasm to file this report, but there are several lies, untruths, fabrications - call them what you will - in CoF's original post. Some are mentioned previously in this thread, but these are the ones that have been identified so far (and no doubt additional exaggerations and untruths will follow):

1. Lacking internet access for 2 days per week is 28% of a week, not 38%.

2. "Game 11926485 - ... Also in this game josko covered for Sir Sebstar in Round 1 - yet by remarkable coincidence Sir Sebstar was able to return to CC just 41 minutes later and post here: viewtopic.php?f=37&t=135788&p=3961622#p3961622"

The difference between the turn and the forum post is 1481 minutes, not 41. A full day + 41 minutes.

3. "Gaining an unfair advantage in complex unlimited fort games" - the numbers prove this to be untrue.

Josko's score in unlimited team games (Triples+Quads) without Moonchild in team: 20/22 (91%)
Josko's score in unlimited team games (Triples+Quads) with Moonchild in team: 27/37 (73%)

Josko's score in all settings team games (Triples+Quads) with Moonchild in team 147/194 (76%)
Josko's score in all settings team games (Triples+Quads) total 263/353 (75%)

By these numbers, we would do best to not allow Moonchild to ever play in Josko's unlimited games. We have clearly received no advantage from doing so.

Wrong on all counts Foxglove (see my post above), so perhaps it is you that is being a little overzealous and posting "lies, untruths and fabrications"

Yr Pt.1 - is a lie. Moonchild has no access other than from work, not just for two days out of seven. A big difference
Yr Pt.2 - is untrue. When my post says "41 minutes later", i.e. 'after the expiry of Sir Sebstar's turn'
Yr Pt.3 is a fabrication. Why take stats historically back to the start and not just look at the period for which this account sitting has been taking place? If you look at the games cited in the OP there are 13. Of these 13: five are won, one is lost, a further four are about to be won, and three have recently just started. That's a rather remarkable statistic of 9 wins out of 10 for Moonchild's team. It also coincides with over 60% of those 13 games having the first turn taken by someone else - a distinct advantage - and 100% of them having someone sit at some stage. It's rather irrefutable.

[Chewie1]

This looks like its going to be a biggie.

One thing I would add on clan sitting:

If someone is legitamately away on holiday emergencies etc..

Clan members cover.

It is very rare for the same clanmate to constantly cover your turns, several in a row possibly but not exclusively.
You do get exceptions if a certain clan member is an expert on a map, if the player is away and someone notices they are short on time a wall post could be used ie:

Hey chew, ***** is away he is up on Das schloss, I hate that Game I see your on and your the man on it.. can u cover for ***** pls.

But if its a regular map you get game chat that reads:
Chew for **
Josko for **
cof for **
chew again
Sir seb for **

Can u see the point I'm trying to make
Very rare for a clanmates turns to be always covered by 1 player therfore no smoke without fire.

[cowboyz]

at this whole thread.

[deathcomesrippin]

Everyone can thank Cowboyz for ruining the fun for all.

Locked.

[deathcomesrippin]

Josko has been Noted for Account Sitting Abuse

I will point out that the only issue that concerns the C&A Mods in case like this is not the possible unfair account sitting issues for an actual clan game, but the account sitting itself. Josko never joined a game for Moonchild, and announced his taking of the turns and the reason why. So, this does not break any of the rules there. Josko only took turns on the dates he announced, and never logged into Moonchild apart from that. If Moonchild was really unable to take his turns, and he was never online on the weekends mentioned, then this is all above board and from the point of view of a punishable offense, completely okay. This in and of itself excludes Josko from actually suffering from an infraction. In fact, in the Clan Challenge against OSA, Josko informed the opposing Clan leaders of this and it was accepted. This it would seem might need to be an issue someone will need to take up with Clan Mods if they have a problem with it from a purely Clan influenced point of view.

The questionable side of this case, and the side that led to a Noted tag, is the established schedule of of someone taking turns for you, to the extent that it could have been going on for some time. One could easily assume this could be deliberate or another form of account sharing. For Josko and Moonchild to come out not suspicious or if any other players would be in the same situation as this, the right thing to do is to openly announce it as your signature or state it on your profile wall, and must be mentioned in all your games. Moonchild should announced that Josko (or whoever sits for him) will be there each and every weekend. The first step to stopping this as being looked at as abuse is to be completely open about it in every and all games.

This is a singularly unique case insofar as this is the only one we have seen with these exact issues, and with this we needed to take steps to assure that we covered all the ground necessary. I apologize for the delay in the case, and will open the case for awhile to let people respectfully comment. Thank you.

[Leehar]

This is actually pretty understandable.

The act of account-sitting that josko performed was reasonable and fair (which is basically because Moonchild wasn't available at all to take the turns).
But the noted tag comes about because this has been happening on a consistent and indeterminate nature, so it is somewhat dubious for a person to be covered ad infinitum.

I'm not sure I agree with the example to mitigate that, and the precedence it sets that if you're sitting for someone you need to post it on Wall and sig etc. I can kinda understand the reasoning, but then it needs to be disclosed in the Rules or FAQ as something needing doing, otherwise it's hard for anyone to know thats the extent they need to go to.
As far as I'm aware, and you've said it yourself, that Josko disclosed in Game Chat etc every time that he sat and the reason why (Moonchild unavailable on weekends). So doesn't that mean that everybody the sitting affected was made aware of the situation. Indeed, the clearing it up with OSA goes a step beyond that (And it's a matter for the Clan realm I guess), but all his actions have seemingly been above board and strived for transparency in each respect.
Therefore it seems a bit arbitrary to declare that he/Moon also needs to go the extra mile and post in Sig/Wall, when there's no way of knowing whether that is necessary.

With that being said, now that Josko/Moon have been Noted, is there no effect of the past history in that regard and a higher notch on the Escalating scale?
Re: Account Sitting Abuse - josko.ri/Moonchild/Rodion

[SirSebstar]

if i read this correctly this means that there is no sitting abuse going on. Thats great to have confirmed.
That josko should keep announcing when he sits for someone, as he has, is good to know. I don't know how to handle such a situation myself, should the need ever arise(never i hope) but now i know.
For myself i am glad this is now cleared up.

edit: leehar, i think the noted part is that it COULD go on indefinite, and thats not supposed to happen. if it is a definitive period, then its much less of a concern. Thats how i understand it anyways

[deathcomesrippin]

This is actually pretty understandable.

The act of account-sitting that josko performed was reasonable and fair (which is basically because Moonchild wasn't available at all to take the turns).
But the noted tag comes about because this has been happening on a consistent and indeterminate nature, so it is somewhat dubious for a person to be covered ad infinitum.

I'm not sure I agree with the example to mitigate that, and the precedence it sets that if you're sitting for someone you need to post it on Wall and sig etc. I can kinda understand the reasoning, but then it needs to be disclosed in the Rules or FAQ as something needing doing, otherwise it's hard for anyone to know thats the extent they need to go to.
As far as I'm aware, and you've said it yourself, that Josko disclosed in Game Chat etc every time that he sat and the reason why (Moonchild unavailable on weekends). So doesn't that mean that everybody the sitting affected was made aware of the situation. Indeed, the clearing it up with OSA goes a step beyond that (And it's a matter for the Clan realm I guess), but all his actions have seemingly been above board and strived for transparency in each respect.
Therefore it seems a bit arbitrary to declare that he/Moon also needs to go the extra mile and post in Sig/Wall, when there's no way of knowing whether that is necessary.

With that being said, now that Josko/Moon have been Noted, is there no effect of the past history in that regard and a higher notch on the Escalating scale?
Re: Account Sitting Abuse - josko.ri/Moonchild/Rodion

We're not telling him to do that with his sig and his wall, we just said it would be the right thing to do.

[niMic]

I can't believe CoF was wrong.

[Dako]

I can't believe CoF was wrong.

I think you should apply for C&A team with your forecasters skills.