Moderator: Community Team
Metsfanmax wrote:Also, I looked back over the old thread, and someone brought up a point (mostly relevant for casual, presumably) at the time worth considering: can someone sitting for you resign a game on your behalf?
IcePack wrote:degaston wrote:IcePack wrote:If this ever gets expanded to 24 hour games and doesn't have an option to refuse a resignation, it's probably the last day I volunteer / play on this site.
Why couldn't you just FAMO for anyone that resigns?
Why can't the alternative I proposed be considered for those who dont want resign?
clangfield wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:Also, I looked back over the old thread, and someone brought up a point (mostly relevant for casual, presumably) at the time worth considering: can someone sitting for you resign a game on your behalf?
I don't see why not. You can give your sitter instructions on the tactics you've been following if you want them to play a certain way; if necessary this should include whether or not they can resign.
How would the system be able to identify a sitter anyway? It couldn't assume a different IP address meant a different person, or that the same ip meant the same person.
I can't see how this could be implemented in a practical way: you'd almost have to rely on people's honesty to push an "I am sitting" button when they logged in. I don't think there's much to be gained. If you let someone sit for you then you have to accept that they are in control of what happens.
Metsfanmax wrote:clangfield wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:Also, I looked back over the old thread, and someone brought up a point (mostly relevant for casual, presumably) at the time worth considering: can someone sitting for you resign a game on your behalf?
I don't see why not. You can give your sitter instructions on the tactics you've been following if you want them to play a certain way; if necessary this should include whether or not they can resign.
How would the system be able to identify a sitter anyway? It couldn't assume a different IP address meant a different person, or that the same ip meant the same person.
I can't see how this could be implemented in a practical way: you'd almost have to rely on people's honesty to push an "I am sitting" button when they logged in. I don't think there's much to be gained. If you let someone sit for you then you have to accept that they are in control of what happens.
Of course I don't mean "can a sitter resign" as a technical issue, I mean from a rules perspective, should a sitter be allowed to resign without penalty.
IcePack wrote:(for the record, there was never a thread in beta area on the "feature" until I brought it up here. It still only has 9 views and zero posts about the ongoing testing or organizing.
Metsfanmax wrote:Personally I'm fine with someone resigning a game on behalf of the sittee as long as that is not inconsistent with the sittee's instructions. But a member of the C&A staff had brought it up, which I thought was fair.
Captn B wrote:IcePack wrote:(for the record, there was never a thread in beta area on the "feature" until I brought it up here. It still only has 9 views and zero posts about the ongoing testing or organizing.
Wha? I didn't know there even WAS a thread regarding this. Does someone have that link and will share it, please?
Having an obvious place to report findings to (within beta--like a link on every page or a menu item) would be an obvious benefit. I once made a suggestion regarding colors/visibility on one map, which the map-maker appreciated, but I had to track him down and write him a pm in REAL CC, instead of beta. That was just awkward. I would much prefer a thread to post findings in.
Maybe a link on the welcome to beta pm would be a minimal add, but far better would be a menu item. Maybe I am simply unaware that it is already in place, but that's the point: I'm unaware and so may others be also. A menu item would help that.
Dukasaur wrote:Captn B wrote:IcePack wrote:(for the record, there was never a thread in beta area on the "feature" until I brought it up here. It still only has 9 views and zero posts about the ongoing testing or organizing.
Wha? I didn't know there even WAS a thread regarding this. Does someone have that link and will share it, please?
In theory everything being tested in Beta has a thread dedicated to it in the Beta Testers' Forum. That should be one of the top forums on your list of Forums, even above Announcements. If it isn't let me know; there may be something wrong with your forum permissions.
Beast Of Burson wrote:I can't believe this has been going on for 10 years! (Feb 2, 2006). It's being way overthought in my book.
owenshooter wrote:
not by the people that first implemented it!! they put it in, it was abused, they got rid of it... the community was much smaller back then... a little smaller than what it is now *cough*... people were clamoring for it when we were 30K strong, and there was NO WAY that was going to happen... it is just a poor idea and even going to beta with it shows a general LACK of people studying their CC history, and a willingness to repeat the mistakes of the past. this isn't the time for huge errors, this is the time for visionary leadership to lead us out of this tail spin...-Bj
Donelladan wrote:It doesnt take ridiculously too much time to be implemented for 1vs1, it is done and it is coming ( soon i hope).
The feature is already there on the beta site.
Just so you know.
IcePack wrote:Look at how much trouble had to go through to get a monthly medal and the controversy surrounding it:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=220817&view=unread#p4875640
Nothing a few well placed resigns would solve, amirite?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users