The Official Clan Sitting Rules (Old Version)

[uckuki]

don't we have enough rules and regulations in real life, with cameras, comps
and whatever following our every move?? is the goal to make cc less fun and
more by-the-book place, with dice police checking our every turn?
the more rules and regulations the less fun and interesting cc will be.
I mean people talk about account sitting like it's doping at the Olympics.

how about this rule: take it easy.

[agentcom]

Having clan mate's pw, is it right or wrong ? A clan mate well very probably can play clan games, and non-clan games as well.
According to your lines, since non-clan games are going to be dealt in CA, but guess what, say some clan ppl has the pw for emergencies in clan war games and this pw, having it becomes a rule violation when it is non-clan game/s. So, are we going to ask ppl in clans not to play non-clan games ? If we are gonna allow clan players to play non-clan war games, then how are we gonna have their pw to sit to cover emergincies in clan war games ? Since having pw is rule violation it says...

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. It's not a violation of the rules (as far as I know) to have someone else's password. There are some actions that are bad enough that they are considered account sitting/sharing abuse. These clan-specific rules are stricter than those, so what may violate these rules doesn't necessarily violate site rules. And if it doesn't violate site rules, there would be no reason for a C&A report. Given this, people can continue to sit for others in non-clan games, the same as they always have. That's all I was saying.

For the clan games, having the password is again not a violation in itself. You just have to follow the new rules or else you risk forfeiting a game or whatever punishments are decided upon by the clan leadership.

However, this does pose interesting questions for folks whose sitters are not part of their clan or not part of the clan world at all.

[eddie2]

what he is saying nicky is that king achilles has already said in a thread that players are not allowed to hold onto other players passwords, but clan moderators are saying in these rules/discussions that you can do this, so is there going to be a conflict here where players are following rules allowed by clan moderators then someone gets pissed off and opens a c and a report.. will the players get a busted/ noted/ warned because they are breaking a site rule ???

like i have said love the idea of new rules, just think they need to be clarified more because they are vague like a lot of rules. So as they stand just now you do not know what you can or cannot do properly.

[Bruceswar]

what he is saying nicky is that king achilles has already said in a thread that players are not allowed to hold onto other players passwords, but clan moderators are saying in these rules/discussions that you can do this, so is there going to be a conflict here where players are following rules allowed by clan moderators then someone gets pissed off and opens a c and a report.. will the players get a busted/ noted/ warned because they are breaking a site rule ???

like i have said love the idea of new rules, just think they need to be clarified more because they are vague like a lot of rules. So as they stand just now you do not know what you can or cannot do properly.

King A has never said it was illegal to hold another person's password. King A has always said be careful who has it and also that you are responsible for what they do while on it. Moral of the story is choose your sitters wisely.

[HardAttack]

well said bruce, got the clear idea now then.
having pw is not the rule violation but it comes to be rule violation at the stage in use...
got it.


agentcom, eddie2 well described my point, so i didnt answer...but the last post from bruce made it very clear i guess removing the fogs away from my mind.

[greenoaks]

what he is saying nicky is that king achilles has already said in a thread that players are not allowed to hold onto other players passwords, but clan moderators are saying in these rules/discussions that you can do this, so is there going to be a conflict here where players are following rules allowed by clan moderators then someone gets pissed off and opens a c and a report.. will the players get a busted/ noted/ warned because they are breaking a site rule ???

like i have said love the idea of new rules, just think they need to be clarified more because they are vague like a lot of rules. So as they stand just now you do not know what you can or cannot do properly.

actually it was Night Strike

This right here is the completely FALSE mentality that gives rise to all of these stupid clan-sitting cases and blatant rule violations. You do NOT have the right to have someone else's password 24/7 in case they MIGHT miss a turn. Account sitting is supposed to only be used when people know ahead of time that they will be away from the computer and can change their password to a temporary one for the duration of the account sitting. Jumping into everybody's turns simply because they might miss is utterly ridiculous. A missed turn is literally not the end of the world. If you lose a game or clan war because of it, then so be it. Breaking the rules to have someone jump on your account anytime they want is not worth it. If Chuck was missing too many turns and becoming a liability in the clan war, then why did you keep putting him in those games? You deal with the problem when the next set of games become available, not when you have their password and can log in any time you feel like it. It's that mentality that every single game must be won at all costs (including breaking the rules) that has caused so many people to make clan wars completely intolerable to everybody else who doesn't adhere to that fundamentally flawed philosophy.

[HardAttack]

what he is saying nicky is that king achilles has already said in a thread that players are not allowed to hold onto other players passwords, but clan moderators are saying in these rules/discussions that you can do this, so is there going to be a conflict here where players are following rules allowed by clan moderators then someone gets pissed off and opens a c and a report.. will the players get a busted/ noted/ warned because they are breaking a site rule ???

like i have said love the idea of new rules, just think they need to be clarified more because they are vague like a lot of rules. So as they stand just now you do not know what you can or cannot do properly.

actually it was Night Strike

This right here is the completely FALSE mentality that gives rise to all of these stupid clan-sitting cases and blatant rule violations. You do NOT have the right to have someone else's password 24/7 in case they MIGHT miss a turn. Account sitting is supposed to only be used when people know ahead of time that they will be away from the computer and can change their password to a temporary one for the duration of the account sitting. Jumping into everybody's turns simply because they might miss is utterly ridiculous. A missed turn is literally not the end of the world. If you lose a game or clan war because of it, then so be it. Breaking the rules to have someone jump on your account anytime they want is not worth it. If Chuck was missing too many turns and becoming a liability in the clan war, then why did you keep putting him in those games? You deal with the problem when the next set of games become available, not when you have their password and can log in any time you feel like it. It's that mentality that every single game must be won at all costs (including breaking the rules) that has caused so many people to make clan wars completely intolerable to everybody else who doesn't adhere to that fundamentally flawed philosophy.

So, what do you think, is this his own thoughts or if what he says is wide spread valid rules we have got here in this site ?
Thank you for this nice catch, i knew i saw it somewhere but you thankfully brought this up here...
Bruce, you are a CD leader, NS is tournament head director, i am ordinary player...
Lol, i mean which one is valid, your words ? KA's ? NS ?
Which of above comments are we gonna take to be valid rules ?
I disagree with what NS says, his opinions solely showing the battle result between his own ethics, morals, values and outcome of a clan war result. He puts ethics, values one step in the front of clan war result, however i dont. To me, i will do whatever neccesary for my clan not to miss a turn, thus to improve odds to win the whole war SITTIN INSIDE THE RULEs. If i see my clan mate is in danger of missing a turn in a clan war game, i ll jump in to take the turn after i try possible ways to reach to him/her (PMs, wall messages, if i have got then email or instant message, so on..)... I won't let a missed turn to happen in a clan war game...

[greenoaks]

what he is saying nicky is that king achilles has already said in a thread that players are not allowed to hold onto other players passwords, but clan moderators are saying in these rules/discussions that you can do this, so is there going to be a conflict here where players are following rules allowed by clan moderators then someone gets pissed off and opens a c and a report.. will the players get a busted/ noted/ warned because they are breaking a site rule ???

like i have said love the idea of new rules, just think they need to be clarified more because they are vague like a lot of rules. So as they stand just now you do not know what you can or cannot do properly.

actually it was Night Strike

This right here is the completely FALSE mentality that gives rise to all of these stupid clan-sitting cases and blatant rule violations. You do NOT have the right to have someone else's password 24/7 in case they MIGHT miss a turn. Account sitting is supposed to only be used when people know ahead of time that they will be away from the computer and can change their password to a temporary one for the duration of the account sitting. Jumping into everybody's turns simply because they might miss is utterly ridiculous. A missed turn is literally not the end of the world. If you lose a game or clan war because of it, then so be it. Breaking the rules to have someone jump on your account anytime they want is not worth it. If Chuck was missing too many turns and becoming a liability in the clan war, then why did you keep putting him in those games? You deal with the problem when the next set of games become available, not when you have their password and can log in any time you feel like it. It's that mentality that every single game must be won at all costs (including breaking the rules) that has caused so many people to make clan wars completely intolerable to everybody else who doesn't adhere to that fundamentally flawed philosophy.

So, what do you think, is this his own thoughts or if what he says is wide spread valid rules we have got here in this site ?
Thank you for this nice catch, i knew i saw it somewhere but you thankfully brought this up here...
Bruce, you are a CD leader, NS is tournament head director, i am ordinary player...
Lol, i mean which one is valid, your words ? KA's ? NS ?
Which of above comments are we gonna take to be valid rules ?
I disagree with what NS says, his opinions solely showing the battle result between his own ethics, morals, values and outcome of a clan war result. He puts ethics, values one step in the front of clan war result, however i dont. To me, i will do whatever neccesary for my clan not to miss a turn, thus to improve odds to win the whole war SITTIN INSIDE THE RULEs. If i see my clan mate is in danger of missing a turn in a clan war game, i ll jump in to take the turn after i try possible ways to reach to him/her (PMs, wall messages, if i have got then email or instant message, so on..)... I won't let a missed turn to happen in a clan war game...

NS made those comments back when sharing passwords and jumping in and out of each others accounts at any time of the day was a common tactic of some players. 1 C&A case banned 8+ players from playing any games together and there were some big names amongst that group.

what it boils down to HardAttack is there are some players that believe winning at any cost is acceptable, even if it means sharing their accounts 24/7 to gain an advantage over the other team/clan. then there is the group that believe this is Account Sharing and is against site rules.

the battle between Evil & Good has been raging for years, with the occassional flare up like we have now.

[ahunda]

All of the above quotes are from the CoF C&A case, I believe. After that ruling some people had the same question, that HA is asking here, and so a new thread was opened to get some clarification. In this new thread king achilles said:

Having someone's password does not automatically or necessarily mean there is an account sharing going on but the temptation that you can freely log in to someone's account even when your not suppose to will always be there. It's what you guys do that could break the account sitting guideline - so be careful not to abuse it.

Subject: Passwords - meant particularly for clans and regular teams

And this was his last statement on the issue, afaik. It´s still a bit vague, but as I read it: There is no rule against PW sharing itself. The site is aware, that this has become general practice in clans & regular teams. This is ok, as long as the PW is only used to step in in an emergency & take a turn, that is in danger of being missed. It is not ok & can be punished as abuse, when people log into each others accounts at leisure, whenever they want, for whatever reason they want, and especially in order to gain strategic advantages in games.

[josko.ri]

I think it would be good to allow some clans to modify this rules, for example al those rules apply by default, unless BOTH clans agree to remove any of the rules. for example clans may agree to remove only rules 3,4 or only rule 2, and keep all other rules.

Some clans do not care a lot about opponent sitting, they play just to have plain fun in their own games and not even care for total result. some players do not even know what is clan about. they just join games that they are invited. so let for those ones to not apply all rules, if both involved sides agrees to that. if only one side does not agree then rulle apply.

Some clans play this game on very high competitive level, where every move is discussed among members of the team, and then sometimes happen account owner cannot be online when final decision about move is done. In that cases, and when playing level is very competitive, strict rules are needed, and strict declared punishment. So we all know what will happen to player who do not notice in chat that he was sitting, what will happen to player who plays maximum own games and make extra sitting, and what will happen to the ones who put absent players into games. Low clans are not guilty that top 2 clans are fingering between each other who did a single (or more often) sitting abuse, is it intentionally or not, is it fair or not, is it rule breaking or not. for them, me included, strict rules on the place are very needed so we can say who cheat and who do not cheat, and we can have proper punishment for the ones who cheat. But some lower clans (I am not generalizing, this may apply also for some top clans like previous argument may also apply for lower clans) just play this game for having basic risk fun with as much as possible simple rules and as low as possible restrictions.

So let them play simple, if they both wish so, and let the ones who take this game more than just a game to have strict rules which will apply in their challenges to avoid any going around the rules.

[HardAttack]

All of the above quotes are from the CoF C&A case, I believe. After that ruling some people had the same question, that HA is asking here, and so a new thread was opened to get some clarification. In this new thread king achilles said:

Having someone's password does not automatically or necessarily mean there is an account sharing going on but the temptation that you can freely log in to someone's account even when your not suppose to will always be there. It's what you guys do that could break the account sitting guideline - so be careful not to abuse it.

Subject: Passwords - meant particularly for clans and regular teams

And this was his last statement on the issue, afaik. It´s still a bit vague, but as I read it: There is no rule against PW sharing itself. The site is aware, that this has become general practice in clans & regular teams. This is ok, as long as the PW is only used to step in in an emergency & take a turn, that is in danger of being missed. It is not ok & can be punished as abuse, when people log into each others accounts at leisure, whenever they want, for whatever reason they want, and especially in order to gain strategic advantages in games.

i appreciate for the routing me through into the link buddy,
seems like it is where my answer is.

[L M S]

I think it would be good to allow some clans to modify this rules, for example al those rules apply by default, unless BOTH clans agree to remove any of the rules. for example clans may agree to remove only rules 3,4 or only rule 2, and keep all other rules.

Some clans do not care a lot about opponent sitting, they play just to have plain fun in their own games and not even care for total result. some players do not even know what is clan about. they just join games that they are invited. so let for those ones to not apply all rules, if both involved sides agrees to that. if only one side does not agree then rulle apply.

Some clans play this game on very high competitive level, where every move is discussed among members of the team, and then sometimes happen account owner cannot be online when final decision about move is done. In that cases, and when playing level is very competitive, strict rules are needed, and strict declared punishment. So we all know what will happen to player who do not notice in chat that he was sitting, what will happen to player who plays maximum own games and make extra sitting, and what will happen to the ones who put absent players into games. Low clans are not guilty that top 2 clans are fingering between each other who did a single (or more often) sitting abuse, is it intentionally or not, is it fair or not, is it rule breaking or not. for them, me included, strict rules on the place are very needed so we can say who cheat and who do not cheat, and we can have proper punishment for the ones who cheat. But some lower clans (I am not generalizing, this may apply also for some top clans like previous argument may also apply for lower clans) just play this game for having basic risk fun with as much as possible simple rules and as low as possible restrictions.

So let them play simple, if they both wish so, and let the ones who take this game more than just a game to have strict rules which will apply in their challenges to avoid any going around the rules.

I'm not sure this is alright. The set up has to be the same for everybody. It should be that all Clans must modify their tactics to fit within the rules. Arbitrarily disregarding the rules because that's how you have always done it....hmmm, well aren't we here today because of that very problem?
You ask for strict rules, these are - so I say be creative and work within them because they make it better for everybody, not just the "top 2".
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one."

[chapcrap]

Now this a clean slate, we are moving forward. We must all adhere to site rules.

A clean slate for breaking previous rules?

Really?

I'm ok with the rules and whatever we need to do, but giving out some kind of blanket immunity for people who have been breaking site rules is absurd.

and raising C&A reports based upon things said in this thread is just petty and vindictive

C&A reports based on admissions of guilt is petty and vindictive? That's silly. It's like saying if I admit I had a multi in this thread it shouldn't be punished.

Breaking a site rule, that has been a rule for as long as I've been on the site, has nothing to do with these new clan rules. Account sharing has been against the rules. Anyone should be punished appropriately.

So far that sounds like betiko, macbone (or whoever in FOED he was talking about), freakns, and whoever else.

[Funkyterrance]

don't we have enough rules and regulations in real life, with cameras, comps
and whatever following our every move?? is the goal to make cc less fun and
more by-the-book place, with dice police checking our every turn?
the more rules and regulations the less fun and interesting cc will be.
I mean people talk about account sitting like it's doping at the Olympics.

how about this rule: take it easy.

Yes that would be lovely if nobody tried to bend the rules of common sense in regard to fair play. It's not the rules' fault ; the rules were created due to people taking advantage of their fellow players' good nature. You can take it easy all you want but you are doing just that: "taking it".

[Lindax]

Now this a clean slate, we are moving forward. We must all adhere to site rules.

A clean slate for breaking previous rules?

Really?

I'm ok with the rules and whatever we need to do, but giving out some kind of blanket immunity for people who have been breaking site rules is absurd.

and raising C&A reports based upon things said in this thread is just petty and vindictive

C&A reports based on admissions of guilt is petty and vindictive? That's silly. It's like saying if I admit I had a multi in this thread it shouldn't be punished.

Breaking a site rule, that has been a rule for as long as I've been on the site, has nothing to do with these new clan rules. Account sharing has been against the rules. Anyone should be punished appropriately.

So far that sounds like betiko, macbone (or whoever in FOED he was talking about), freakns, and whoever else.

You're forgetting SirSebstar

Lx