Conquer Club

http://www.conquerclub.com/player.php?mode=cup1

Account sitting is forbidden in Conquer Cup games

What's the deal with that?

The Cup can take a while to fill up, and each game/round can take weeks.

So if I've planned to go away for a weekend more than a month from now, I might as well not bother joining, right? Try missing a turn in an escalating game when the card cashes are high.

We all know the merits of having an account sitter, and when they might be necessary.

The only two and a half concerns I can imagine with account sitting in the Conquer Cup games are as follows:
A] Having a sitter who is an inordinately better player
B] Potential for abuse when account sitting as an opposing player in a game your friend is in
Bii] Taking over an account Blitzaholic/jobiwan style in order to have a greater chance at winning the iPad or whatever

A] I don't think this is a legitimate problem, as any strong player could hypothetically dictate instructions to a succumbing player without being in the game in question
B] This is but an example of where a site-integrated sitting tool would solve the problem - or potential for problem

It's probably because there's a prize involved. The temptation is sometimes too great for some when there "stuff" at stake.

Yes, but even so...

If it were my aim to win the 'stuff' and attain it by illegal account sitting practices, I guess I'd enter myself (as in my account) but also arrange with person X to sit his account, too. And share the prize (if won) with person X. Or hope that my account and my pseudo-account are in the same game (eg. the final) and gang up on the other players. And so on.

How is this different from secret diplomacy or dictating instructions to a player, having decided to split the prize ultimately? Or however you want to look at it.

Would you rather have kiron and xiangwang in a Conquer Cup game against you, or let my account sitter take one or two turns when I have to be away for a few days?

ManBungalow wrote:Yes, but even so...

If it were my aim to win the 'stuff' and attain it by illegal account sitting practices, I guess I'd enter myself (as in my account) but also arrange with person X to sit his account, too. And share the prize (if won) with person X. Or hope that my account and my pseudo-account are in the same game (eg. the final) and gang up on the other players. And so on.

How is this different from secret diplomacy or dictating instructions to a player, having decided to split the prize ultimately? Or however you want to look at it.

Would you rather have kiron and xiangwang in a Conquer Cup game against you, or let my account sitter take one or two turns when I have to be away for a few days?

This was enacted before me, but I think it has to do with principle (and no, a Kiron-xiangwang scenario would also not be acceptable).

Specifically, if you're going to win a prize, lack wanted to make sure that the account holders' decisions were what would make or break a game. Most of the gray areas were already covered by current site practices, but the one that wasn't was when people would sit accounts. To rectify this, he simply made sitting illegal so now everyone's gameplay was (ideally) representative of the person behind the username -- the one that might be getting a prize.

BMO

Account sitting should be forbidden unless it's REALLY necessary, and I can't find many instances of when this would be the case.
There are too many ways to abuse this rule.

maxfaraday wrote:Account sitting should be forbidden unless it's REALLY necessary, and I can't find many instances of when this would be the case.
There are too many ways to abuse this rule.

Do you mean generally, or specifically in the Conquer Cup?

EDIT: adding a comma to that sentence so it doesn't make less sense