Moderator: Clan Directors
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 ?
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.
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?
stahrgazer wrote: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?
crispybits wrote:1) If account sitting was banned, and everyone knew the rule and followed the rule would anyone have any unfair advantage over anyone else?
2) If the rules were left wide open, and everyone knew the loopholes and gray areas in the rules and some people decided to abuse them, would anyone have an unfair advantage over anyone else?
ahunda wrote:Yeah, well, Funkyterrance: As I said, I think, you got carried away here & are not seeing things clearly anymore.
The new rules, that were laid down in this thread, might make account sitting abuse a bit more difficult, but they also make life a bit more difficult for all honest & fair players, who only ever sit accounts in real emergencies, as per the official CC rules.
You are mixing up all kinds of issues here and cry for radical measures without even considering their real effects, incl. the side effects for non-cheating, honest & fair players. Now I personally didn´t comment in this thread for 10+ pages. Only when you guys got so far as to call for an all-out ban of all account sitting, did I post. Because this really goes too far, in my opinion.
Why would you want to abolish this practice ? How much positive usage of account sitting would you sacrifice for a very questionable impact on actual cheating/abuse ?
Funkyterrance wrote:So it's settled then, no more account sitting.
crispybits wrote:As I said if clans wanted competitive gaming, then the competitive gamers who very rarely miss turns because the competition is important to them will find each other. If clans want casual gaming, the players who don't mind losing the odd game because someone deadbeats will find each other. If someone wants to go from casual to competitive then they know they have to prioritise it higher.
There are net cafes in every town in the western world. There is internet access on smartphones. If your power goes out both of those are viable options. If your internet is down both of those are viable options. If you have to go out of town on business both of those are viable options. The number of people for whom neither of those are viable options is tiny, and limited to park rangers, professional mountain climbers, etc. If you get sick even most modern hospitals have ways that patients can get online, and if you're really sick or hurt then until you're over the worst of it CC doesn't matter a jot anyway. If a family crisis comes up then CC won't matter anyway.
crispybits wrote:I have at no point claimed that every pro-sitter is a cheat. I have only said that some people will abuse grey areas and loopholes
And well done for having your rank, seriously. It's a testament to your skill and dedication and I respect that. But does that rank on this site mean more to you than any of those things you listed? Does that rank mean more to you than anyone else's versions of anything you listed?
I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I'm simply saying I want a fair game. That means closing off the loopholes and the grey areas. If that means that for a couple of weeks each year (on average) everyone will suffer a bit of a rankings hit then it's the same for everyone. If I said everyone should drop 100 points right now would that be unfair? Or would it make no difference at all to the overall standings? If I said that those people who don't mind bending the rules as far as they will go all get given an extra 100 points right now would that be unfair? Or maybe a percentage, so a fair player who wouldnt bend any rule gets 0 extra points, and someone who will go half way to the limits gets 50... how about that? Is that unfair?
If you have "agreed to sit" someone's account then that means that they have informed you of there impending absence and thus the emergency one hour rule isn't in effect. You can take those turns at you convenience.stahrgazer wrote: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."
Look at it this way. You are NOT required to take those turns. You and/or your clan have the choice of either taking those turns at that undesirable time of day, or potentially letting those turns be missed. As such you can weigh the expected impact and importance of said turns versus the difficulty of taking them at the allotted time. It is your choice how much effort you want to put into your clan's war effort.ahunda wrote: I for one have never ever taken turns for a clan mate in order to gain some advantage, and yet I find the idea, that I might now need to stay up til 2 o´clock at night to cover a turn for someone, who just missed turns in 3 other games, just so that the timer is down to the last hour, a bit irritating. I feel, I am being made to suffer for the abuses of others, by no fault of mine.
crispybits wrote:OK how about a different solution, and bear with me here because the idea is forming as I write it out.
1) Ban account sitting. Period. No player is ever allowed to log into any other payer's account.
2) For tournaments and clan games only, a feature is coded into the site to allow a nominated substitue to take over a game from another player.
3) If a player goes AWOL (and cases of this will be rare, players being in car wrecks or family emergencies or whatever isn't a common occurence) the substitute can permanently take the place of the AWOL player in any and all of that player's clan/tournament games.
4) No player is allowed to be substituted unless either (a) he is within the final hour of a clan/tournament game turn without having logged in during the duration of that turn or (b) he has already missed a turn in a non-clan game.
5) Tournament organisers, when they set up a tournament game, are allowed to put in a maximum of 2 substitues for any team (subject to their own discretion, they may choose to allow only one or none at all) when they send out the invites. If they have restrictions on who can participate in the tournament then obviously they can also enforce that restriction on who can be named as substitutes.
6) Clan war organisers, when they set up clan war games, are allowed to nominate 2 players per game as substitutes when the game is set up.
7) When the conditions are met when an account sit is allowed by these rules, both substitutes automatically receive a game invite, similar to being invited into an unstarted game, to replace whatever player is AWOL. If either of those people accepts the invite, the substitution takes place.
No player is allowed to be a substitute in a game where they are already playing as part of one of the teams.
9) All substitutions are permanent. If the original player comes back he does not take back his place in that game, and he now only has whatever access to the game that any other 3rd party would have, including not being able to see through the fog.
This removes the grey areas, as players can't log in to anyone else's account and do the morally dubious things that would be possible. As soon as a sit takes place it's clearly visible to everyone that the account has been sat and who has taken over. And everything is visible, above board, legal, and without grey areas or loopholes. It also allows clans to agree on the limits of the sitting allowed during the war, and who is allowed to sit for either side.
It's late here, so I may have missed something, but maybe that's a starting point. I have no idea of the coding complexity or anything else, and I am open to improvements on the basic idea.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users