account sitting issues..new rule? <updated - see 1st post>

[MrMoody]

What if it was made to be a time restriction rather than a player restriction?

We do allow members to occasionally "babysit" for other members that are away from the game. The babysitter may not play in more than one turn within a 12 hour period and may not start or join new games (with the exception of ongoing tournaments). It is common courtesy to announce in game chat that another player will take your turn(s) during your absence.

This i think is the better idea. If you cant come back the next day and make a second move you need a babysitter yourself.This will not change sequential and puts a limit on freestyle.

[DiM]

i wasn't being a smart ass at all. i still don't se how you can verify me if i'm the one taking turns or if my sitter is
your suggestion sounds good but it is impractical.

[jiminski]

i wasn't being a smart ass at all. i still don't se how you can verify me if i'm the one taking turns or if my sitter is
your suggestion sounds good but it is impractical.

Thank you mate.

The thing is... how does the new ruling give more safeguard from what you describe?; proxy servers and bald men with super-computers, stroking cats and laughing maniacally because they just scored an extra 4 points on their path to conquering the world .. (Muahahahaha)

The New ruling offers no more 'security' against the arch-criminal genius than my proposal does. My proposal just offers a chance at a free life to ordinary players who have no interest in cheating the system .. they simply want to help an ill mate in some cases (you missed that part to focus on the cheap joke!) Or yes sometimes people will be away for 12, 24 or 48 hours without having planned it a year in advance.

If we are talking about your proposal.. well that is different; hehe reading that makes my eyes bleed .. the red-tape involved in applying for a babysitter under your regime, makes getting authorisation to become a Stockbroker in the post War Soviet Union, look like a cake-walk (not sure what a cake-walk is.. but i am told it is easier than ones average pursuit)

The world is made of very different people with different needs. To hinder my life and many others for no good reason at all, is a real injustice and an infringement upon my liberty.... heheh laughable isn't it!? I know it is.. but let us try to find suitable solution .. i thought mine was, except to the most cunning and virulent of cheaters... but no system will catch them anyway, not yours, not mine, not the new ruling. So why do decent and honest players have to suffer for it!?

I tell you now, i will not.

[DiM]

If we are talking about your proposal.. well that is different; hehe reading that makes my eyes bleed .. the red-tape involved in applying for a babysitter under your regime, makes getting authorisation to become a Stockbroker in the post War Soviet Union, look like a cake-walk (not sure what a cake-walk is.. but i am told it is easier than the average pursuit)

aren't you exaggerating a "bit"??

filling a name and sending 2 e-tickets is quite easy and it takes no more than 2 minutes. 2 minutes of your time that will in return stop all possible abuse. is it really that hard to give up those 2 minutes to make this a better place? i mean you've wasted hours posting and reading this thread. 2 minutes is nothing compared to that.

[jiminski]

If we are talking about your proposal.. well that is different; hehe reading that makes my eyes bleed .. the red-tape involved in applying for a babysitter under your regime, makes getting authorisation to become a Stockbroker in the post War Soviet Union, look like a cake-walk (not sure what a cake-walk is.. but i am told it is easier than the average pursuit)

aren't you exaggerating a "bit"??

filling a name and sending 2 e-tickets is quite easy and it takes no more than 2 minutes. 2 minutes of your time that will in return stop all possible abuse. is it really that hard to give up those 2 minutes to make this a better place? i mean you've wasted hours posting and reading this thread. 2 minutes is nothing compared to that.

Excellent i just wanted to check what you were comparing my idea to.

the answer is you are fighting for yours and not the new Ruling put forward by Twill... you want to limit our freedom more than the site does... hmm just so we know where we are Comrade Stalin

Your regime is just more restrictive upon those who were not going to cheat anyway and will have no greater effect upon those determined to cheat.

[DiM]

If we are talking about your proposal.. well that is different; hehe reading that makes my eyes bleed .. the red-tape involved in applying for a babysitter under your regime, makes getting authorisation to become a Stockbroker in the post War Soviet Union, look like a cake-walk (not sure what a cake-walk is.. but i am told it is easier than the average pursuit)

aren't you exaggerating a "bit"??

filling a name and sending 2 e-tickets is quite easy and it takes no more than 2 minutes. 2 minutes of your time that will in return stop all possible abuse. is it really that hard to give up those 2 minutes to make this a better place? i mean you've wasted hours posting and reading this thread. 2 minutes is nothing compared to that.

Excellent i just wanted to check what you were comparing my idea to.

the answer is you are fighting for yours and not the new Ruling put forward by Twill... you want to limit our freedom more than the site does... hmm just so we know where we are Comrade Stalin

Your regime is just more restrictive upon those who were not going to cheat anyway and will have no greater effect upon those determined to cheat.

yeah yeah i'm stalin because i want to stop cheaters.
but no way that means porr little you will have to fill 2 e-tickets and waste 2 minutes of his life for this. no way he will do that. why in the world would he help?
god you're so selfish. basically you're saying you'd rather chose your comfort and not waste 2 minutes rather than see the cheating and abuse related to babysitting be stopped.

nice. with people like you our future is destined to be bright.

[jiminski]

With people like you it will be dark, controlling and humourless... a little like President Mugabe

no need to get all personal DiM ... and besides, you are the one who wants to impose himself upon others, not me.
I am fighting for the status-quo, you on the other hand are fighting to impose his miniature junta upon us all.

You are the one who thinks a few points are worth more than a little freedom for many. And yes in particular, in my selfish little world (which is why i am a little less patient with you than usual!) for a sick mate who needs the flexibility of my assistance!

perhaps i have lost my sense of perspective but your position sounds like the selfish one based in an egotistical need to impose his will, mine asks for freedom to remain the same... no in fact it asks that you meet me in the middle because i am a reasonable guy!
but then I could be wrong.. having read your post on the Social Republic of DiM, i am not sure which way is up any longer! ...

What was the first line "All pigs are equal.. but some pigs are more equal than others" sounds good to me brother!

[greenoaks]

the people in here are mostly sequential team players that don't take advantage of sitting. well, and greenoaks.-0

it is a heavy burden being the only voice of reason.

[jiminski]

can someone quote Oaksy.. i can not see his words for some unknown reason

[jiminski]

OK ok I apologise DiM, you win!
... your idea has been aired and although excellent may be a little restrictive and over complicated.


Can we bury the hatchet and see if anyone likes my idea as a compromise to try to solve this situation?

Proposals

Team-mates: Sequential and Freestyle players can play for 1 partner and only 1.
They may only do so on the agreement in game chat by a member of the opposition team. (once agreement is reached a partner may play as a babysitter at any time but this must be announced each time and may be revoked if any member of the opposition team feels it is being abused)

Freestyle:
Team-mate rule above applies but also Team-mates may not play more than 1 account simultaneously and a gap of at least 1 hour must separate 2 goes by the same player/babysitter.


I think that this has all the necessary safeguards (even JR can be happy as he can just deny the luxury of a team member as a babysitter) but answers the calls for flexibility of the genuine users who do not wish to abuse but merely to not be enslaved.

Although this will, i am sure, not stop all cheaters... but then nothing can 100% of the time.
It does offer protection and the right to refusal from opposition teams.
It is no less secure or prone to abuse than the new draft rule but offers a solution and compromise to get the dissenters onboard.
Not everyone will be happy but are we to totally compromise our freedoms for a few low-lives who manipulate the system.. no! only we lose if we take that course of action!!

[DiM]

With people like you it will be dark, controlling and humourless... a little like President Mugabe

no need to get all personal DiM ... and besides, you are the one who wants to impose himself upon others, not me.
I am fighting for the status-quo, you on the other hand are fighting to impose his miniature junta upon us all.

You are the one who thinks a few points are worth more than a little freedom for many. And yes in particular, in my selfish little world (which is why i am a little less patient with you than usual!) for a sick mate who needs the flexibility of my assistance!

perhaps i have lost my sense of perspective but your position sounds like the selfish one based in an egotistical need to impose his will, mine asks for freedom to remain the same... no in fact it asks that you meet me in the middle because i am a reasonable guy!
but then I could be wrong.. having read your post on the Social Republic of DiM, i am not sure which way is up any longer! ...

What was the first line "All pigs are equal.. but some pigs are more equal than others" sounds good to me brother!

there you go exaggerating again. banning cheaters and making you fill 2 e-tickets can hardly be called dark, controlling and humourless.

if you treasure the freedom then by god let multis and cheaters roam free. i'll go now and create 100 new accounts and when i use them to ruin your games i'll tell you it's all about fun and freedom and humour.
what? you'll want to ban me? you communist pig!!! you want to enslave my free will??? i shall not allow this. long live multis long live cheating and abusing.

wait we have rules and laws in real life too? screw all of them let's start killing and stealing and raping, all in the name of freedom and fun.

you know even cavemen had rules i hope we're a bit more advanced than that. nobody is saying total control is the way to go but neither is anarchy.
a way in between where rules exist but don't over restrict the liberty is perfect and i do feel that my suggestion does exactly that. it imposes a rule, it offers a way of catching the cheaters and at the same time it doesn't over restrict the liberty of the users.

now stop with all the commie nonsense and be reasonable. do you really think filling 2 e-tickets is such a hard and time consuming thing? do you think it's not worth doing that if you know CC will become a cleaner place?

[jiminski]

OK ok I apologise DiM, you win!
... your idea has been aired and although excellent may be a little restrictive and over complicated.


Can we bury the hatchet and see if anyone likes my idea as a compromise to try to solve this situation?

Proposals

Team-mates: Sequential and Freestyle players can play for 1 partner and only 1.
They may only do so on the agreement in game chat by a member of the opposition team. (once agreement is reached a partner may play as a babysitter at any time but this must be announced each time and may be revoked if any member of the opposition team feels it is being abused)

Freestyle:
Team-mate rule above applies but also Team-mates may not play more than 1 account simultaneously and a gap of at least 1 hour must separate 2 goes by the same player/babysitter.


I think that this has all the necessary safeguards (even JR can be happy as he can just deny the luxury of a team member as a babysitter) but answers the calls for flexibility of the genuine users who do not wish to abuse but merely to not be enslaved.

Although this will, i am sure, not stop all cheaters... but then nothing can 100% of the time.
It does offer protection and the right to refusal from opposition teams.
It is no less secure or prone to abuse than the new draft rule but offers a solution and compromise to get the dissenters onboard.
Not everyone will be happy but are we to totally compromise our freedoms for a few low-lives who manipulate the system.. no! only we lose if we take that course of action!!

[DiM]

hatched buried, peace pipe passed along

i already said, in theory your idea is good but it isn't practical.
imagine this scenario. you and me are in a game as a team against lack and twill. lack has to leave and he wants to put wicked as his sitter. according to your suggestion he has to announce that in chat and me and you must agree.

here comes the problem part.

1. posting that in chat and waiting for our confirmation will take much longer than writing an e-ticket, plus what if we refuse? he just misses his turns?
2. what if he doesn't post at all?? how will we know it's wicked taking turns for lack? we won't. so basically he can just not care about us and give wicked his password.
3. let's assume he posts and we accept wicked but after she takes a turn i feel abused by wicked and i no longer want her in the game. what happens? she stops taking lacks turns?

[MrMoody]

Look you two have both put your ideas forward. lets not debate them any longer in here. twill will look over the ideas and if one sounds better im sure he will discuss it then. this is just flooding over any other ideas.

[jiminski]

hatched buried, peace pipe passed along

i already said, in theory your idea is good but it isn't practical.
imagine this scenario. you and me are in a game as a team against lack and twill. lack has to leave and he wants to put wicked as his sitter. according to your suggestion he has to announce that in chat and me and you must agree.

here comes the problem part.

1. posting that in chat and waiting for our confirmation will take much longer than writing an e-ticket, plus what if we refuse? he just misses his turns?
2. what if he doesn't post at all?? how will we know it's wicked taking turns for lack? we won't. so basically he can just not care about us and give wicked his password.
3. let's assume he posts and we accept wicked but after she takes a turn i feel abused by wicked and i no longer want her in the game. what happens? she stops taking lacks turns?

1. true, yes the point is.. (I should have clarified the rule, i will do just that!) The rule gives you the ability to get agreement from the opponents as soon as play commences "DiM .. not saying we will need to to but do you object to us playing each others game if we are away?" - in chat and if no answer you can send a PM.

no answer at all is possible, well in that case i conceded you would have to get another non-team baby-sitter in reserve.... i think people would fast find out who would be unreasonable about that.

2. If no one posts at all, the password is handed over and the team-mate babysitter plays without approval, this is a clear violation and the player is banned/warned (not my call as to how many warnings, 1 perhaps to allow a mistake?) How CC detects this is their businness and i am not privy to it.. but the risk is no greater than the proposed rule change solution (putting your idea to one side for the moment)

3. yeap i agree it could balance it in the favour of the opponent but i have tries to offer concession and base the rule in good-faith to try to get those who hate the present system on board and to offer a very real compromise.
Again it is a little like the answer for point 1. - we fast find out who is unreasonable when we need their understanding ... hehe Rocket for example would just say no to all requests and some teams would not play him as a result... that is each users decision.





that way it is understood right away whether team-mate can play if required. that i why i add that you have announce it each time you play, so it does not just give free-reign.

[jiminski]

Look you two have both put your ideas forward. lets not debate them any longer in here. twill will look over the ideas and if one sounds better im sure he will discuss it then. this is just flooding over any other ideas.

heheh .. just when we make peace another tries to upset the apple cart.

no moody, this is a free world my friend and we are trying to be constructive now, after a small yet impassioned tussle.
In fact what is best and what Twill wants is for ideas to be beaten out (maybe not quite so passionately.. but the timing for me and DiM was all off)

What we need is people finding and discussing what aspects work and do not .. indeed mine and DiM's initial posturing has perhaps given us the chance to look more objectively at the issue taking each others views into consideration ... sometimes diplomacy needs a war to clear the air

[detlef]

can someone quote Oaksy.. i can not see his words for some unknown reason

Must be nice...

[jiminski]

can someone quote Oaksy.. i can not see his words for some unknown reason

Must be nice...

ahh Ignorance is bliss!

heheh I am told Oaksey always has a contented smile

[roadwarrior]

Twill,

You asked for suggestions.

In response to the proposed rule about babysitting, regards freestyle, I can understand how teams can abuse the babysitting priviledges after reading the posts so I can agree with the proposed rules.

However regards sequential games, I would like to suggest that you allow teams in private games to waive the babysitting rule if both teams are agreeable.

For example, in a triples game, Team 1 and Team 2 can mutually waive or agree for the unrestricted babysitting priviledges and key in their ageement in the game chat. If they mutually agree in the private game chat, then the issue of babysitting abuse or cheating won't arise since both teams are willing and even mutually insist on playing this format.

Therefore cc will not need to monitor the above game type if it can be a workable solution.

[Timminz]

However regards sequential games, I would like to suggest that you allow teams in private games to waive the babysitting rule if both teams are agreeable.

Why just private games? If all teams are ok with it, you should be able to waive it in any game.

[jiminski]

However regards sequential games, I would like to suggest that you allow teams in private games to waive the babysitting rule if both teams are agreeable.

Why just private games? If all teams are ok with it, you should be able to waive it in any game.

yeah i suggest that a few posts back, and clarify after DiM's queries.
have a look mate, see if you agree

[Nephilim]

well one issue here for me is this: what sort of tools for detection does CC have? in the quest to formulate the proper rule, it is essential to know if a proposal could be effectively enforced. say CC went w/ twill's original proposal.....how easy would it be for CC to enforce it?

is it possible to have a system that automatically alerts a mod when the same IP address takes 2 or more turns in a game, even program it w/ some sort of time factor, like 2 turns, same game, within 30 minutes, 1 hour, whatever.....?

if so, what happens next? does the mod PM the turntaker, or try to determine if this is "legitimate" sitting or not?

if it turns out that the whole thing is quite difficult to enforce, or if this automatic system showed that a CRAPLOAD of legitimate sitting is actually the norm on CC , then i propose we leave everything as is, mods can delete the whiny pm's, CC rolls on as usual.....

[Timminz]

However regards sequential games, I would like to suggest that you allow teams in private games to waive the babysitting rule if both teams are agreeable.

Why just private games? If all teams are ok with it, you should be able to waive it in any game.

yeah i suggest that a few posts back, and clarify after DiM's queries.
have a look mate, see if you agree

I read it, but I understood it to mean something slightly different, and didn't really have anything to add at the time. roadwarrior's suggestion seemed simpler and more to the point (albeit, not as "well-rounded"), and I did have something to add at that point. I agree completely with your reasoning, and what you're trying to accomplish, but I think your suggestion still leaves things to be desired (although, I have no ideas to make it better, atm), while DiM's idea seems a little "over-bearing", and twill's suggestion seems like it would leave most, honest team sitters up shit creek, so to speak. I definitely sit more on the "don't change anything" side of the fence, but that could be because I have never personally witnessed any of the abuse that's apparently going on. Really, I care a lot more about not hindering my (and the vast majority of other team players') ability to enjoy CC as a casual gaming experience, without stressing about missed turns due to work running late, or an emergency, or whatever else pops up in everyday life. For planned, extended sitting, almost any of the suggestions would be fine (barring JR's "No Sitting at all"), because with time to plan, anyone should be able to find a completely appropriate sitter, no matter which rules are applied.

[jiminski]

yeah i suggest that a few posts back, and clarify after DiM's queries.
have a look mate, see if you agree

I read it, but I understood it to mean something slightly different, and didn't really have anything to add at the time. roadwarrior's suggestion seemed simpler and more to the point (albeit, not as "well-rounded"), and I did have something to add at that point. I agree completely with your reasoning, and what you're trying to accomplish, but I think your suggestion still leaves things to be desired (although, I have no ideas to make it better, atm), while DiM's idea seems a little "over-bearing", and twill's suggestion seems like it would leave most, honest team sitters up shit creek, so to speak. I definitely sit more on the "don't change anything" side of the fence, but that could be because I have never personally witnessed any of the abuse that's apparently going on. Really, I care a lot more about not hindering my (and the vast majority of other team players') ability to enjoy CC as a casual gaming experience, without stressing about missed turns due to work running late, or an emergency, or whatever else pops up in everyday life. For planned, extended sitting, almost any of the suggestions would be fine (barring JR's "No Sitting at all"), because with time to plan, anyone should be able to find a completely appropriate sitter, no matter which rules are applied.

yes i was obviously not quite clear enough.. but clarified a little later.

[Twill]

This could potentially be a long post, I have lots of notes, but I will whittle it down as much as possible

Let me start here:

well one issue here for me is this: what sort of tools for detection does CC have? in the quest to formulate the proper rule, it is essential to know if a proposal could be effectively enforced. say CC went w/ twill's original proposal.....how easy would it be for CC to enforce it?

And laugh. nice try, but we're not giving out trade secrets. Just assume that we can see through your computer screen and know who is sitting there

Now. I literally have 2 pages of hand written notes:
Gozar and Detlef - time limits and % turns simply run into similar problems we have now and don't allow flexibility for people who are in speed games, real time games or just play frequently. We force the pace to a much slower 12 hour.
RiskTycoon - The problem is that you end up with people who legitimately need/want sitters being forced to play people who abuse sitters. If they don't accept that they are getting screwed over, they can't have someone sit for them.
Thezz - Lets say Abuse is the unfair gaining of advantage in a game. Now that unfair is what is open to perception and no matter how tightly we define it, someone will always define it differently than you or I and that is where the problems come in.
DiM - People are lazy, they don't read and they don't like doing work, thus they wont do it. It's simple statistics, not about mentally challenged players vs. geniuses. We are not here to teach, we are here for pleasure and as such, we cater to everyone from 6 year olds to 60 year olds (and 60 year olds who act like 6 year olds). For that reason and that reason alone your system will not work no matter how much we will it to or want it to.
Jim - that is a very well formed idea and after I got your PM I had some time to think about it: Limiting to 1 sitter is dangerous - what happens if your 1 sitter has to leave as well unexpectedly. Can you change sitters? if so, how often? If you can change, it leaves it open to abuse again - Right now I'm istting for A, 5 minutes from now, I'm sitting for B and in 10 minutes C is sitting for me...but only one at a time!
With the agreement to sit, there are too many chances for people to "forget to reply" or "miss your message" and force you to miss a turn.
With the open-ness of your rule(s), there is little onus on the teams to post their intentions at the start of the game meaning that people will "forget" and then complain later.

Now, RoadWarrior has, perhaps hit the nail on the head with a very very elegant solution.

As such, I am going to propose what I think is a combination of our original proposal, Jim and roadwarrior's suggestions and covers most all bases:

Rule #1: No multiple accounts

Multiple accounts are discovered by routine scans and community cheating reports. They are strictly forbidden whether or not they play in the same games. If you suspect certain accounts belong to the same person, please report it following the instructions at the top of the Cheating & Abuse Reports forum.

We do allow members to occasionally "babysit" for other members that are away from the game. While any player on the site may babysit for any other, unless all players in the game agree, a player may never control more than one account in the same game (even if they are teammates) and, regardless of agreement, may not start or join new games (with the exception of ongoing tournaments) on behalf of the account they are sitting. It is common courtesy to announce in game chat that another player will take your turn(s) during your absence.

This may undergo some wording refinement to make it shorter, but does that address both the potential for
a) cheating, abuse and percieved abuse (the onus is on teams at the start of a match to declare intent. If one player dissents then you must find a non-team mate sitter)
b) allowing for teams who trust each other (i.e. have a good reputation for not abusing the system) to have team mates sit for each other in case of emergency.

I assume if you agree to have team mates sit, you're not going to perceive abuse down the line...

Now. The BIG downside of this is that there is a lot of social pressure being put on that one dissenter to agree - it's hard to say "no" when everyone else is saying yes.

I don't know how much of a problem that would be, but it's there.

So, thoughts?