Rules Change

[maxatstuy]

Concise description:

• The rules pertaining to account blocks should be modified

Specifics:

• Declare that you will be blocked from playing anyone whose password you have

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Currently, blocks appear to be haphazard and without reasoning
• By changing the rules and making them more specific, people will know what they are getting themselves into when they leave someone their password

Comments:

Considering the decision in the Maxatstuy thread where dozens of people were blocked because of the temptation that I may have to cheat or abuse their accounts, I find that there is no justification or reasoning. There is nothing in the rules that states you cant play people whose passwords you know and I feel that if that rule existed, people might treat their passwords with more credence and the blocks would seem more reasonable. With that said, I dont see any reason why a block should be put in place when no one was aware of the repercussions of giving their passwords away. I know that while I held multiple peoples passwords, I never abused them, and even in the decision rendered by king_achilles, he stated that "the temptation of playing team games or even non team games with these accounts, whether the real owners are aware of what you already know or not, could also mean that you could log in to these accounts at any time and play in two or more accounts at the same time in one or several games, thus the purpose was already turned into gaining a tactical advantage and no longer just for avoiding missing turns." This means that no cheating had taken place and that the only fear was that cheating could occur in the future. I believe that the people on this block should be given the opportunity of knowing that by giving away their passwords they would be blocked.

Several months, ago Scott_Land played for *manimal and raised his score up about 3 or 4 ranks in his absence, is that any different from the actions of myself when playing for my friends? He was never blocked and I feel that unless the rule is made official about blocks, there is no reason why people should be blocked because of a rule which doesnt exist.

[phantomzero]

While I think this rule would would help, I also think it needs to be added with an account sitting rule. If CC had an account sitting function then no one else should have your password.

Phantomzero

[cicero]

Concise description:

• The rules pertaining to account blocks should be modified

Specifics:

• Declare that you will be blocked from playing anyone whose password you have

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Currently, blocks appear to be haphazard and without reasoning
• By changing the rules and making them more specific, people will know what they are getting themselves into when they leave someone their password

Comments:

Considering the decision in the Maxatstuy thread where dozens of people were blocked because of the temptation that I may have to cheat or abuse their accounts, I find that there is no justification or reasoning. There is nothing in the rules that states you cant play people whose passwords you know and I feel that if that rule existed, people might treat their passwords with more credence and the blocks would seem more reasonable. With that said, I dont see any reason why a block should be put in place when no one was aware of the repercussions of giving their passwords away. I know that while I held multiple peoples passwords, I never abused them, and even in the decision rendered by king_achilles, he stated that "the temptation of playing team games or even non team games with these accounts, whether the real owners are aware of what you already know or not, could also mean that you could log in to these accounts at any time and play in two or more accounts at the same time in one or several games, thus the purpose was already turned into gaining a tactical advantage and no longer just for avoiding missing turns." This means that no cheating had taken place and that the only fear was that cheating could occur in the future. I believe that the people on this block should be given the opportunity of knowing that by giving away their passwords they would be blocked.

Several months, ago Scott_Land played for *manimal and raised his score up about 3 or 4 ranks in his absence, is that any different from the actions of myself when playing for my friends? He was never blocked and I feel that unless the rule is made official about blocks, there is no reason why people should be blocked because of a rule which doesnt exist.

An interesting suggestion Maxastuy.

<thinking aloud> ... Isn't this already the case? I believe that babysitting is already only allowed when the babysitter has no interest in the games that the babysat account is playing. Having said that I can't find these 'babysitting rules' anywhere, so I think you maybe have a point that they should be clearly set down somewhere within the Rules.

(Max, can I respectfully suggest that if you can avoid the temptation to explain how deeply you've been wronged - the part I've reduced the size of in my quote - in your future posts in this forum it will help the constructive discussion of the suggestion at hand a great deal.)

[cicero]

While I think this rule would would help, I also think it needs to be added with an account sitting rule. If CC had an account sitting function then no one else should have your password.

Phantomzero

Good point zero. Something like this Account Sitting suggestion would really help.

[yeti_c]

http://www.conquerclub.com/eticket/index.php

15. Can I let another player take a turn for me when I am away from the game?

You can, with the stipulation that the account babysitter is not your opponent in any current game and does not start or join new games (except for ongoing tournaments). It is common courtesy to announce in game chat that another player will take your turn(s) during your absence. Furthermore, you should only take another player's turn if they are in danger of missing a turn, not for the purpose of gaining a tactical advantage.

C.

[maxatstuy]

An interesting suggestion Maxastuy.

<thinking aloud> ... Isn't this already the case? I believe that babysitting is already only allowed when the babysitter has no interest in the games that the babysat account is playing. Having said that I can't find these 'babysitting rules' anywhere, so I think you maybe have a point that they should be clearly set down somewhere within the Rules.

(Max, can I respectfully suggest that if you can avoid the temptation to explain how deeply you've been wronged - the part I've reduced the size of in my quote - in your future posts in this forum it will help the constructive discussion of the suggestion at hand a great deal.)

That is not true and has no impact on the suggestion which I created. You are not allowed to babysit for someone when it for strategical advantage, not only when you have no interest in the games which you are playing. That means that in a game where a doubles partner is going to be away for a week, the partner can play for him as it is not for strategical advantage, it is out of necessity. (This was confirmed by a friend who asked a moderator before babysitting in his partners absence.) I know the rules on babysitting very well and no where in them does it state that you cannot babysit for multiple people whose games do not conflict, and it was my knowlegde of multiple peoples passwords that caused everyone to be blocked.

In response to your "respectful suggestion," I see no way which my suggestion does not pertain to the block, as the block is the basis for which my suggestion is founded. The administrators/moderators founded a decision based upon a rule which didnt, and still does not exist. Unless you would like to provide an alternate reasoning for the block, I will assume that this suggestion will give adequate justification for future blocks similar to my own, hence making my own personal situation very pertinent.

[PepperJack]

Max, you might have missed the point, but of course I may have missed it as well.

I think what Cicero was saying is that if don't try to always make everything about you, you might find that your suggestion carries more sway. Every time you post, you make it known that you're on a cross, a true martyr and that CC is always trying to find ways to make you miserable.

If you could just let your ideas stand on their own merit instead of making them a platform for Max, you'd probably find that they're better received.

Also, I will refer you to the Rules page. While I don't particularly care for unwritten rules myself, there they are (or are they not there, whatever). Just because you can't read the rule doesn't mean its not there.

[maxatstuy]

Max, you might have missed the point, but of course I may have missed it as well.

I think what Cicero was saying is that if don't try to always make everything about you, you might find that your suggestion carries more sway. Every time you post, you make it known that you're on a cross, a true martyr and that CC is always trying to find ways to make you miserable.

If you could just let your ideas stand on their own merit instead of making them a platform for Max, you'd probably find that they're better received.

Also, I will refer you to the Rules page. While I don't particularly care for unwritten rules myself, there they are (or are they not there, whatever). Just because you can't read the rule doesn't mean its not there.

Unwritten Rules

Obviously any gross abuse of the game is forbidden. This includes but is not limited to: throwing games or deliberately benefiting from thrown games, intentional deadbeating, serial teammate killing, hijacking accounts.

Youre posting has no bearing on this conversation. No account was hijacked, no teammates were killed, no games were thrown, and the only thrown games which would have taken place, would be had I not played for the people who asked me to sit for them in their absence. Since you apparently did not read my last post were I responded to cicero, I will repeat that the block is in every way relavant to this thread, and had I not referred to it, this thread would make no sense as there would be no context.

[KoE_Sirius]

Silly idea.The current baby sitting rule is already subject to rule bending.Lets just ban baby sitting altogether.

[PepperJack]

...includes but is not limited to...

[maxatstuy]

...includes but is not limited to...

Hence...I am asking for a Rule Change

and btw, those were the general category of rules for babysitting, none of which inclue anything similar to a double standard for higher rank babysitting, or of multiple account babysitting

[cicero]

...

I think what Cicero was saying is that if don't try to always make everything about you, you might find that your suggestion carries more sway. Every time you post, you make it known that you're on a cross, a true martyr and that CC is always trying to find ways to make you miserable.

If you could just let your ideas stand on their own merit instead of making them a platform for Max, you'd probably find that they're better received.

Youre posting has no bearing on this conversation. No account was hijacked, no teammates were killed, no games were thrown, and the only thrown games which would have taken place, would be had I not played for the people who asked me to sit for them in their absence. Since you apparently did not read my last post were I responded to cicero, I will repeat that the block is in every way relavant to this thread, and had I not referred to it, this thread would make no sense as there would be no context.

Max,

A couple of things:

First up PepperJack has it exactly right - that is what I was trying to say. [cicero nods to PepperJack by way of acknowledging that he has cut the quote slightly for length]

Second up regarding the bolded part of your post. Again - I'm trying to help - if you wish to continue to discuss this idea further then you need to be open to criticism of the idea. To ensure that the discussion is focussed on the idea please do not continue to post details of your personal situation. It is off topic as far as this thread is concerned.

If you are trying to constructively convince a number of people why your proposed rule change would be good for the site the context really must extend further than "it would benefit MaxaStuy". If you use this thread as a soap box to protest that you have been wronged it'll get locked. (Trust me I've checked with the Suggs & Bugs moderation team).

[yeti_c]

(Trust me I've checked with the Suggs & Bugs moderation team).

*snigger*

C.