Account Sitting Password

[lackattack]

On another game i saw a good way of having sitters, in the settings page you could assign a maximum of 2 people to sit your account, and you could sit for a maximum of 2 people, and then you could sign in with their username and your password, with limited features on the account. I think this would be a good idea here, limiting the access to just taking turns.

Interesting solution...

[insomniacdude]

I have 4 or 5 account sitters.
Who cares if they steal your account, you're involved too much if you care that much.

Because I spent 20 of my own hard-earned dollars on this site, and I should have the right to protect that investment in whatever way possible.

[misterman10]

BUMPAROONI!

what is this site coming to

[Iliad]

BUMPAROONI!

what is this site coming to

Yeah, what is this site coming to! People like you aren't banned!

[misterman10]

BUMPAROONI!

what is this site coming to

Yeah, what is this site coming to! People like you aren't banned!

ROFL

[john1099]

I have 4 or 5 account sitters.
Who cares if they steal your account, you're involved too much if you care that much.

Because I spent 20 of my own hard-earned dollars on this site, and I should have the right to protect that investment in whatever way possible.

By them joining games?

Your post really didn't make much sense.
If they log onto my account and take my turns for me, good for them, I hope they do !

[insomniacdude]

I have 4 or 5 account sitters.
Who cares if they steal your account, you're involved too much if you care that much.

Because I spent 20 of my own hard-earned dollars on this site, and I should have the right to protect that investment in whatever way possible.

By them joining games?

Your post really didn't make much sense.
If they log onto my account and take my turns for me, good for them, I hope they do !

Really, the primary concern for me is whether or not they'll change my password. I also think it's important to protect the investment of my time in this website by the reputation I may have built up in the game and in the forums.

[lackattack]

On another game i saw a good way of having sitters, in the settings page you could assign a maximum of 2 people to sit your account, and you could sit for a maximum of 2 people, and then you could sign in with their username and your password, with limited features on the account. I think this would be a good idea here, limiting the access to just taking turns.

On second thought... there is a problem with this. What if the sitter has the same password as the sittee??

[Aerial Attack]

On another game i saw a good way of having sitters, in the settings page you could assign a maximum of 2 people to sit your account, and you could sit for a maximum of 2 people, and then you could sign in with their username and your password, with limited features on the account. I think this would be a good idea here, limiting the access to just taking turns.

On second thought... there is a problem with this. What if the sitter has the same password as the sittee??

I see the problem. If both passwords are the same, the sitter will always log into their own account instead of the sittee's account. That is definitely an interesting dilemma. Here's a potential solution:

Instead of having a separate password for when you are sitting, you just log in normally. If a person wants someone to sit for them, they have to change their account setting from Normal to Sitter. If you are in the sitter list and that account is set to sitter, then games for which you are sitting will show up on your "My Games" tab - or a separate "Sitting Games" tab.

As to whether you should be allowed to sit for someone in the same game, that's a good question. I think that as a teammate, you have a vested interest in them taking their turns and probably have similar strategies. As an opponent, you should have conflicting interests and therefore should NOT be allowed to sit for them. I guess this is why you need at least 2 sitters (perhaps even have a Primary and Secondary sitter?).

Based on another thread over in the General Discussion (the SkyT and his "teammates" one), there would need to be other restrictions applied to sitting an account.

If a sitter has taken a turn in a game, that sitter should NOT be allowed to take another turn in the SAME game for some time period (10-12 hours?). Selecting 10 hours as the time span, allows a chance to prevent a possible double turn (by being less than the new 12 hour max lock). But 10 hours prevents a "sitter" from effectively taking turns for two or more players in the same game (in real time). I'm not sure what an appropriate "lock" should be for a sequential game (20 hours?). After all, a sitter is mainly there to prevent missed turns/deadbeat play.

This solution still doesn't quite resolve SkyT's situation (where someone knows the passwords for both accounts and it's not set to Sitter). But, it does make it easier to log when people are sitting for other people. People who never have a sitter and always play in team games together and play from the same IP, would definitely be more likely to raise a red flag though.

EDIT: Sitters should definitely NOT be able to join/take turns in speed games. That's just a guarantee that someone is effectively a multi.

[Iliad]

BUMPAROONI!

what is this site coming to

Yeah, what is this site coming to! People like you aren't banned!

ROFL

You do know two or three smileys are enough? I know you're compensating for something!

[john1099]

I thought the suggestion was for the person who signs up to put 2 passwords in, instead of one, and the one would be a personal one, and the other would be a sitting one.

[Aerial Attack]

^bump

[Clive]

On another game i saw a good way of having sitters, in the settings page you could assign a maximum of 2 people to sit your account, and you could sit for a maximum of 2 people, and then you could sign in with their username and your password, with limited features on the account. I think this would be a good idea here, limiting the access to just taking turns.

On second thought... there is a problem with this. What if the sitter has the same password as the sittee??

Hmm, it is an interesting dilemma (sp?)...well i guess i've never made a simple enough password for the situation to arise. But yes that is a problem that my suggestion has no way of compensating for.

[richyfourtytwo]

Here's another one who likes the idea!

[trimunch]

If Lack chose the slightly more ambitious route of parameterizing a set of login priviledges and options, this feature could double as parental control.

A parent could sign up for the account, and then block the "account sitting" password to access to all the forums or, just say, the Flame Wars forum, and could add potentially offensive users to the accounts ignore list.

[insomniacdude]

If Lack chose the slightly more ambitious route of parameterizing a set of login priviledges and options, this feature could double as parental control.

A parent could sign up for the account, and then block the "account sitting" password to access to all the forums or, just say, the Flame Wars forum, and could add potentially offensive users to the accounts ignore list.

!!!!!!

Brilliant!

[lackattack]

To be honest I'm not interested in catering to little children. Once you head down that road you have to start censoring and create a PG-13 environment.

But going back on topic, if anyone has an elegant solution for account sitting we're all ears.

[trimunch]

On another game i saw a good way of having sitters, in the settings page you could assign a maximum of 2 people to sit your account, and you could sit for a maximum of 2 people, and then you could sign in with their username and your password, with limited features on the account. I think this would be a good idea here, limiting the access to just taking turns.

On second thought... there is a problem with this. What if the sitter has the same password as the sittee??

I see the problem. If both passwords are the same, the sitter will always log into their own account instead of the sittee's account. That is definitely an interesting dilemma. Here's a potential solution:

...

Clive : what do you have to specify when you login to this other site as a sitter ?

The brute force solution to the same password problem is context : don't use the value of the password to determine if a user is logging in as himself or someone's sitter either :

1) Offer an alternate "sitter" login form that would require ( sittee login name, sitter login name, sitee account sitter password )

2) Implement a simplified version of Arial's idea by offering a sitter login form only accessible once one is logged in.

Lack, my guess is that you may have already considered this however ... I always find it good to have the undesireable solution explicitly defined when brainstorming for a better idea

[Clive]

Clive : what do you have to specify when you login to this other site as a sitter ?

Um..you put their username, your own password, the one you use on your account...if this is what you are asking, i'm not entirely sure I understand.

Lack has turned it down though, and I think your suggestion would work.

[trimunch]

Clive : what do you have to specify when you login to this other site as a sitter ?

Um..you put their username, your own password, the one you use on your account...if this is what you are asking, i'm not entirely sure I understand.

...

Clive, thx

one additional question : do you enter this on the same form (the same front-page to the site) as the regular login ?

if thats the case then that site has the bug that Lack foresaw : if the sitter has the same password as the sittee he'll get full access to the sittee's account instead of sitter access.

if they do it from a different form, specific to "sitter" logins, then this observation might not apply as they could catch the condition of each user having the same password by the context of the page where the login came from.

[Herakilla]

im pretty sure a lot of people here play Tribal wars, at least the majority of Xi members a couple months ago did. they had a very effective system there. in your settings you could name 2 sitters (by entering their screen names into a field) and it would send a sitter request. if they accept then they can do stuff for you but in order to do it they go into THEIR settings and there is a link. the sitting is terminated when the account is logged in with the proper password and whatnot. if any activity between the two happens during or immediately after (i think we can eliminate the after part) then they are detected and systematically banned.

also people can turn down the sitting request in which case the player must send another one out or hope the second person he/she asked takes it.

[trimunch]

[quote="Herakilla" ... if they accept then they can do stuff for you but in order to do it they go into THEIR settings and there is a link. ...
[/quote]

yeah, you know I actually came back to my machine to post this idea (I SWEAR this is true ) ... bypasses the whole login issue

[Herakilla]

[quote="Herakilla" ... if they accept then they can do stuff for you but in order to do it they go into THEIR settings and there is a link. ...

yeah, you know I actually came back to my machine to post this idea (I SWEAR this is true ) ... bypasses the whole login issue[/quote]

lol i no it works great, you dont get any chance to change passwords so there isnt any chance of account stealing unless you actually tell your sitter the password and if you do, shame on you

[PLAYER57832]

Like idea of a temporary "disposable" password, but it still will only work for folks who know someone who can take over a game. Also, the other players would have to be notified if a transfer occured.

[Clive]

Clive : what do you have to specify when you login to this other site as a sitter ?

Um..you put their username, your own password, the one you use on your account...if this is what you are asking, i'm not entirely sure I understand.

...

Clive, thx

one additional question : do you enter this on the same form (the same front-page to the site) as the regular login ?

if thats the case then that site has the bug that Lack foresaw : if the sitter has the same password as the sittee he'll get full access to the sittee's account instead of sitter access.

if they do it from a different form, specific to "sitter" logins, then this observation might not apply as they could catch the condition of each user having the same password by the context of the page where the login came from.

Same page. The problem could arise, though i've never known it too.