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

[DiM]

i haven't read the entire thread so if this has been suggested before then simply ignore my post.

it's clear that babysitting can lead to abuse regardless of game type (singles/team or seq/freestyle).

i suggest something else.

we get a brand new position for CC "Babysitting moderator"
what does he/she do?

well, for starters he opens a thread where he announces the new e-ticket available for people. what e-ticket? well, the one where people announce that they will be gone for X amount of time and that Y will be taking their turns. Y must not be in the same games (regardless if it's same team or not) as the person that's leaving. the "Babysitting moderator" takes note of this and puts that account under surveillance.
now comes the most interesting part. to babysit an account you must be given rights from the person leaving. it's simple. just add in control panel a tab called "Sitter" there you can input the name of your sitter. this will allow the sitter to log on your account using the Sitted username and his own password (this is important). so he will not log in with the sitted's user AND password. in all games the sitted's username will change from XXX to XXX sitted by YYY. this way everybody will know who they face and make it a lot easier to spot abuse. imagine skyT and a cook playing 2 colonels and al of a sudden the cook is sitted by blitz. kinda fishy. once the sitted returns he MUST send another e-ticket saying that he returned and he has taken the sitting rights away from the guy sitting him. only AFTER he does that he may resume taking his turns.

if during the absence period the sitted logs on his account and takes a turn he will be punished.
if the sitter logs in using the sitted's username and password he will be punished.
once you announce you are going to be sitted you are not allowed to comeback for a minimum of 24 hours. if you do you are punished. sitters should be for times when you are in danger of missing turns not for 30 minute departures when you're going to buy a beer.

the "Babysitting moderator" will supervise to see if the rules are obeyed and will hand out punishments.

[Timminz]

The biggest problem I see with that is that I'm almost always playing at least one game with everyone I trust to sit my turns. I don't need a sitter very often, but that would make it almost impossible for me to find a decent sitter, on those rare occasions.

[detlef]

i haven't read the entire thread so if this has been suggested before then simply ignore my post.

it's clear that babysitting can lead to abuse regardless of game type (singles/team or seq/freestyle).

i suggest something else.

we get a brand new position for CC "Babysitting moderator"
what does he/she do?

well, for starters he opens a thread where he announces the new e-ticket available for people. what e-ticket? well, the one where people announce that they will be gone for X amount of time and that Y will be taking their turns. Y must not be in the same games (regardless if it's same team or not) as the person that's leaving. the "Babysitting moderator" takes note of this and puts that account under surveillance.
now comes the most interesting part. to babysit an account you must be given rights from the person leaving. it's simple. just add in control panel a tab called "Sitter" there you can input the name of your sitter. this will allow the sitter to log on your account using the Sitted username and his own password (this is important). so he will not log in with the sitted's user AND password. in all games the sitted's username will change from XXX to XXX sitted by YYY. this way everybody will know who they face and make it a lot easier to spot abuse. imagine skyT and a cook playing 2 colonels and al of a sudden the cook is sitted by blitz. kinda fishy. once the sitted returns he MUST send another e-ticket saying that he returned and he has taken the sitting rights away from the guy sitting him. only AFTER he does that he may resume taking his turns.

if during the absence period the sitted logs on his account and takes a turn he will be punished.
if the sitter logs in using the sitted's username and password he will be punished.
once you announce you are going to be sitted you are not allowed to comeback for a minimum of 24 hours. if you do you are punished. sitters should be for times when you are in danger of missing turns not for 30 minute departures when you're going to buy a beer.

the "Babysitting moderator" will supervise to see if the rules are obeyed and will hand out punishments.

Wow

[Gozar]

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. The babysitter may not play for more than one account in the same game (even if they are teammates) 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.

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 game withing 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 would give the opportunity for babysitting on the same team, while eliminating the problem that started this debate (where someone took multiple turns in a game for lovo in one day). This way I can take my teammates turn at supper time on Friday, again on Saturday afternoon and hopefully he is back by Sunday. Having a 12 hour space (which will probably be more, some people do sleep) is enough to prevent someone from taking all the turns for a teammate and thus eliminating a "strategic advantage."

[DiM]

The biggest problem I see with that is that I'm almost always playing at least one game with everyone I trust to sit my turns. I don't need a sitter very often, but that would make it almost impossible for me to find a decent sitter, on those rare occasions.

well, on those rare occasions when you do need a sitter make sure you have at least one trustworthy person out of your games, i mean let's say you go on vacation. you know that at least 1 month in advance it can't be hard to finish a game with a certain person. also usually when you ask somebody to sit for you it is a nice gesture to try and have as few games as possible, not to give him 300 games to take care of.

[DiM]

Wow

wow as in:

"wow, what a great idea."

or

"wow, this guy is so dumb thinking we're gonna use his suggestion"

??

[detlef]

Wow

wow as in:

"wow, what a great idea."

or

"wow, this guy is so dumb thinking we're gonna use his suggestion"

??

Wow, as in my head hurts just reading it. Once again, I am waiting for anyone to give evidence that this is such a problem that it needs addressing at all, let alone create a specific position and require forms to be filled out, etc.

I don't agree with you that "clearly" there is abuse in all forms of games or at least not enough to create yet another rule.

[Timminz]

The biggest problem I see with that is that I'm almost always playing at least one game with everyone I trust to sit my turns. I don't need a sitter very often, but that would make it almost impossible for me to find a decent sitter, on those rare occasions.

well, on those rare occasions when you do need a sitter make sure you have at least one trustworthy person out of your games, i mean let's say you go on vacation. you know that at least 1 month in advance it can't be hard to finish a game with a certain person. also usually when you ask somebody to sit for you it is a nice gesture to try and have as few games as possible, not to give him 300 games to take care of.

Yes, of course, if I know I'll be away and unable to access for a while....

but, the last few times I needed a sitter, it was a last minute thing. The internet was down where I was, so I had to call a friend to ask him to sit my games for the day. this would be impossible with what you proposed.

[Gozar]

People who abuse are not going to be stopped by a new rule, they will just find new ways to abuse.

This rule as it being presented will just take away a useful tool from the great majority of honest team players, rather than stop cheating by some tiny minority.

[detlef]

People who abuse are not going to be stopped by a new rule, they will just find new ways to abuse.

This rule as it being presented will just take away a useful tool from the great majority of honest team players, rather than stop cheating by some tiny minority.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

[DiM]

People who abuse are not going to be stopped by a new rule, they will just find new ways to abuse.

This rule as it being presented will just take away a useful tool from the great majority of honest team players, rather than stop cheating by some tiny minority.

actually they are gonna be stopped. with this rule it will be impossible to abuse babysitting.

as for the honest players i really don't see how it spoils their pleasure. you can still have a sitter, only with stricter rules which if you obey will not harm your gaming experience.

[detlef]

People who abuse are not going to be stopped by a new rule, they will just find new ways to abuse.

This rule as it being presented will just take away a useful tool from the great majority of honest team players, rather than stop cheating by some tiny minority.

actually they are gonna be stopped. with this rule it will be impossible to abuse babysitting.

as for the honest players i really don't see how it spoils their pleasure. you can still have a sitter, only with stricter rules which if you obey will not harm your gaming experience.

I suppose once you guys actually explain how babysitting can be abused in sequential games, I'd be happy to show a list of ways it could be easily gotten around.

[DiM]

People who abuse are not going to be stopped by a new rule, they will just find new ways to abuse.

This rule as it being presented will just take away a useful tool from the great majority of honest team players, rather than stop cheating by some tiny minority.

actually they are gonna be stopped. with this rule it will be impossible to abuse babysitting.

as for the honest players i really don't see how it spoils their pleasure. you can still have a sitter, only with stricter rules which if you obey will not harm your gaming experience.

I suppose once you guys actually explain how babysitting can be abused in sequential games, I'd be happy to show a list of ways it could be easily gotten around.

i've already said this in the post i made the suggestion but here goes.

you and your partners start a doubles game. you each have 2000 points.
i have 3000 and join. but if i join with my other 3000 points partner i'll only get 15 points for the win. so i ask a cook with 1 point to join with me and then i have my regular partner to babysit for the cook. we beat you and get 30 points.
then repeat the process only this time my regular partner joins with the cook and i sit for the cook.
30 easy points for each of us (and 60 for the cook).
you may ask why not play normally and win both games it would mean the same number of points overall. well the reason is simple.
1. the element of surprise. if a cook joins after a high ranked player in a team game you'll assume he squeezed in by accident instead of the regular partner so you automatically underestimate the opponents and lose.
2. while me and my partner win 30 each you guys lose 60 each (that's good for weakening competition)

[Gozar]

i've already said this in the post i made the suggestion but here goes.

you and your partners start a doubles game. you each have 2000 points.
i have 3000 and join. but if i join with my other 3000 points partner i'll only get 15 points for the win. so i ask a cook with 1 point to join with me and then i have my regular partner to babysit for the cook. we beat you and get 30 points.
then repeat the process only this time my regular partner joins with the cook and i sit for the cook.
30 easy points for each of us (and 60 for the cook).
you may ask why not play normally and win both games it would mean the same number of points overall. well the reason is simple.
1. the element of surprise. if a cook joins after a high ranked player in a team game you'll assume he squeezed in by accident instead of the regular partner so you automatically underestimate the opponents and lose.
2. while me and my partner win 30 each you guys lose 60 each (that's good for weakening competition)

I would take this scenario not as babysitting abuse, but as a multiple account.

There is already a rule for that.

[detlef]

i've already said this in the post i made the suggestion but here goes.

you and your partners start a doubles game. you each have 2000 points.
i have 3000 and join. but if i join with my other 3000 points partner i'll only get 15 points for the win. so i ask a cook with 1 point to join with me and then i have my regular partner to babysit for the cook. we beat you and get 30 points.
then repeat the process only this time my regular partner joins with the cook and i sit for the cook.
30 easy points for each of us (and 60 for the cook).
you may ask why not play normally and win both games it would mean the same number of points overall. well the reason is simple.
1. the element of surprise. if a cook joins after a high ranked player in a team game you'll assume he squeezed in by accident instead of the regular partner so you automatically underestimate the opponents and lose.
2. while me and my partner win 30 each you guys lose 60 each (that's good for weakening competition)

Well, the rule as presented (not yours mind you) does not prevent this. The rule simply stipulates that a 3rd party must make the moves which is exactly what is going on. This is why the rule presented won't work. It's also only a hair's breath difference between simply finding a cook and coaching him through each and every move of the game.

Your rule, on the other hand is insanely complex and requires the advent of an entire new post at CC. For what? I ask again, is this practice so rampant that we need to create an entire new position at CC to govern this?

If you guys are hell bent on making a new rule and DiM's scenario is the abuse that you guys are speaking of, why not say if you're ranking is twice that of your partner (minimum 1000 pt difference), then you can't make any of his moves and no proxy can sit in for the lower ranked player more than 1 out of 10 turns in the game. That pretty much solves it. Again, that's assuming that there's enough abuse to warrant doing anything at all.

[hulmey]

This thread still going on!! you need to send an e ticket and only allowed 1 babysitter in a 24 hour period. This will cut out all the cheating once and for all. All those still moaning coz they might lose games, well how hard is it to find a babysitter in 10 mins??? I could find 5 to sit my account. If 2 or 3 of those are crap, then so be it. Its only a game for goodsake.

[Twill]

The very fact that people are complaining about how "abuse is so rampant that nothing will stop it" implies that somewhere there is a problem significant enough to warrant a look. Lets take the issues one at a time and try to fix them rather than throwing our arms up in the air and say "f*ck this sucks, but lets not do anything"

Lets also look at some high profile cases such as SkyT and Warsteiner which have involved accusations but with our current rules there isn't anything we can prove or disprove about a rule being broken, we only have accusations of poor sportsmanship. That only leaves a bad taste in peoples' mouths and everyone is pissed off because there cannot be any resolution to that accusation.

If we establish a clear cut rule, we can deal with high profile cases without question or gray areas. It gives us a base to be more fact based than opinion based and that is always good for consistency.

To change gears a little, and address someone's concerns, no, this is not retroactive and is not a witch hunt. Whatever changes will be implemented from the time it goes into effect and not on previous actions.

To loophole #768 where I think detlef claimed you could have 1 person play all the accounts as long as they weren't actually the owner of those accounts - if you read the proposed rule as worded it says you can only control 1 account in a game, regardless of who you are. So no, that isn't a loophole because, unless I missed something you would very clearly be breaking the rule by having player C playing for both A and B even if player C wasn't in the game.

Risktycoon, you can repeat the same thing over and over again, but you're not adding anything to the discussion. Prove to me that it ISN'T an advantage to have 1 person controlling 2 accounts in a game. You have given lots of opinion stating that it is not because you have coordinated your strategy before hand. But I plan my games out at the beginning of any game or turn and yet I have to adjust that strategy based on the outcome of my dice rolls. If you tell me that you and your partner have planned a strategy for every possible outcome of every roll in every attack and thus are simply formulaicly proceeding through those steps then I say you are living a very elaborate deception. If you are not living a deception, go ahead and send me the list so that I can turn it into an unbeatable AI that would know what to do in any situation.

If you don't have that list for me or your partner, then you are making strategy choices for another player and as such removing the need for consultation, coordination and communication. That makes your team mate nothing more than an adviser rather than a partner and that is not a team game, no matter how many times you tell me it is - Adjustments must be made based on the outcome of a roll. Those adjustments should be done as a team in a team game. "Communication is the key to a good team" implies a coordination challenge. If you remove that need for communication and coordination by making strategy choices for your partner ("do I keep rolling or not", "do I now have enough men to keep going", etc.) then that challenge, the core challenge of a team game, is removed. And that holds true for both freestyle and sequential, even if it is more of an issue in a freestyle game.

Oh, and for the record, if I played you in a 1 on 2 game, I would lose because I suck, not because of any lack of advantage.

There is no doubt in my mind that 2 heads are often better than 1 in considering strategy. But at the same time there is no doubt in my mind that coordination is an integral part of a team game and by removing any form of coordination in the execution of a strategy, then you are no longer playing a team game.

If you want to play like that, start a singles game and have an advisor, but don't pretend that a team game is a team game if there is no team.



Still I say, come up with a viable alternative and I'll listen to it, but don't just bitch and whine and stomp your feet because that will come to nothing.

[yeti_c]

Whilst I agree - that there IS an advantage to playing a team game singularly...

I also agree that for a couple of turns in a row... then it doesn't really matter - as you will have laid out the strategy for those... and the ability to get someone to guard your turns for 1 or 2 turns is what people want from their team mates... after all - Team mates are meant to Help each other...

Playing a whole game as a team is completely different though...

But how do you come up with a tight enough rule to stop the cheats - but let the honest (more casual?) players play without having to be tied to their PC everyday?

C.

[detlef]

Just do what you're going to do. I've said my peace. I have trouble making my turns most sundays and the obvious candidate to make them for me is my current doubles partner. I will continue to have him do so as well as look in on my singles games as needed.

The single best way for us to join doubles games is for one or the other to find one, sign up, then log in as the other and sign him up. I will continue to do this.

Retro active or not, I can assure you that I will not be in compliance of your rules the second they become official. If you're looking for someone to ban, you'll need look no further because I'll be your guy.

I enjoy playing at CC but am not prepared to alter what is a completely harmless and logical means of enjoying my games because a bunch of people have their panties in a twist.

Oh and Twill, how dare you point to those of us who have major problems with this new rule as the ones who are jumping up and down and bitching. The very reason this is up for discussion is because somebody else started jumping up and down about bitching and will continue to jump up and down and bitch until all actions are completely controlled and nobody will have to worry about which guy on page 1 is ahead of them because he's a cheat.

[firstholliday]

so tired of this bullshit.......

you can't win... it's all in the 24 threads...

read twill...


BTW last post.... you screwed it for me.

[Gozar]

Couldn't some kind of round or time limit be put in place for babysitting?

The problem you seem to be against, Twill, is those who play entire games as one team. I do not think anyone will argue that this should be against the rules. That being said, playing a turn or two for my teammate is not really doing any harm.

Surely there must be some way to meet in the middle here.

[DiM]

i've already said this in the post i made the suggestion but here goes.

you and your partners start a doubles game. you each have 2000 points.
i have 3000 and join. but if i join with my other 3000 points partner i'll only get 15 points for the win. so i ask a cook with 1 point to join with me and then i have my regular partner to babysit for the cook. we beat you and get 30 points.
then repeat the process only this time my regular partner joins with the cook and i sit for the cook.
30 easy points for each of us (and 60 for the cook).
you may ask why not play normally and win both games it would mean the same number of points overall. well the reason is simple.
1. the element of surprise. if a cook joins after a high ranked player in a team game you'll assume he squeezed in by accident instead of the regular partner so you automatically underestimate the opponents and lose.
2. while me and my partner win 30 each you guys lose 60 each (that's good for weakening competition)

I would take this scenario not as babysitting abuse, but as a multiple account.

There is already a rule for that.

where's the multiple account in my example? i see none. all i see is 2 high ranked players taking turns for a cook in order to abuse the point system.

[DiM]

Still I say, come up with a viable alternative and I'll listen to it

here's one:

i haven't read the entire thread so if this has been suggested before then simply ignore my post.

it's clear that babysitting can lead to abuse regardless of game type (singles/team or seq/freestyle).

i suggest something else.

we get a brand new position for CC "Babysitting moderator"
what does he/she do?

well, for starters he opens a thread where he announces the new e-ticket available for people. what e-ticket? well, the one where people announce that they will be gone for X amount of time and that Y will be taking their turns. Y must not be in the same games (regardless if it's same team or not) as the person that's leaving. the "Babysitting moderator" takes note of this and puts that account under surveillance.
now comes the most interesting part. to babysit an account you must be given rights from the person leaving. it's simple. just add in control panel a tab called "Sitter" there you can input the name of your sitter. this will allow the sitter to log on your account using the Sitted username and his own password (this is important). so he will not log in with the sitted's user AND password. in all games the sitted's username will change from XXX to XXX sitted by YYY. this way everybody will know who they face and make it a lot easier to spot abuse. imagine skyT and a cook playing 2 colonels and al of a sudden the cook is sitted by blitz. kinda fishy. once the sitted returns he MUST send another e-ticket saying that he returned and he has taken the sitting rights away from the guy sitting him. only AFTER he does that he may resume taking his turns.

if during the absence period the sitted logs on his account and takes a turn he will be punished.
if the sitter logs in using the sitted's username and password he will be punished.
once you announce you are going to be sitted you are not allowed to comeback for a minimum of 24 hours. if you do you are punished. sitters should be for times when you are in danger of missing turns not for 30 minute departures when you're going to buy a beer.

the "Babysitting moderator" will supervise to see if the rules are obeyed and will hand out punishments.

[DiM]

Your rule, on the other hand is insanely complex and requires the advent of an entire new post at CC. For what? I ask again, is this practice so rampant that we need to create an entire new position at CC to govern this?

it isn't insanely complex at all. filling an e-ticket takes 30 seconds at most. adding the name of your sitter in the control panel takes another 30 seconds. that's 1 minute of your time to set up a legitimate sitter.
when you return it takes another 30 seconds to send an eticket to announce your return and 30 more to remove the sitter from the control panel.

a total of 2 minutes. i don't think it is such a big sacrifice if this solution will stop all abuse.
after all how often do you need a sitter? 5 times a year? 10 times a year? even once each week and it's still only a minuscule amount of time you spend on this matter. 2 minutes*52 weeks = 1 hour and 44 minutes. i bet you've spent more than that reading and posting in this thread.

[detlef]

Your rule, on the other hand is insanely complex and requires the advent of an entire new post at CC. For what? I ask again, is this practice so rampant that we need to create an entire new position at CC to govern this?

it isn't insanely complex at all. filling an e-ticket takes 30 seconds at most. adding the name of your sitter in the control panel takes another 30 seconds. that's 1 minute of your time to set up a legitimate sitter.
when you return it takes another 30 seconds to send an eticket to announce your return and 30 more to remove the sitter from the control panel.

a total of 2 minutes. i don't think it is such a big sacrifice if this solution will stop all abuse.
after all how often do you need a sitter? 5 times a year? 10 times a year? even once each week and it's still only a minuscule amount of time you spend on this matter. 2 minutes*52 weeks = 1 hour and 44 minutes. i bet you've spent more than that reading and posting in this thread.

Sure, 2 minutes for me. But somebody has to read that ticket along with all the other tickets that get sent in. Hence your proposal that an entire new position be made at CC. That's the part that I'm talking about.