Moderator: Community Team
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
Rodion wrote:Please, tell me more.
What are the requirements for such a ruling?
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
Rodion wrote:What I asked is: is this abuse necessarily punishing both the holder and the sitter? Is it possible only the sitter is punished? In which circunstances? Have a link to a precedent on that?
Thanks!
rdsrds2120 wrote:The above example is an account of Account Hijacking, in which case the sitter does get in trouble.
If the Account holder is letting the sitter on solely for the purpose of strategic advantage in games, point gain, etc., then it is treated as the next level of Major/Severe infraction as noted in the Community Guidelines'
I do hope this clears up any other questions that you have, Rodion.
-rd
Rodion wrote:rdsrds2120 wrote:The above example is an account of Account Hijacking, in which case the sitter does get in trouble.
If the Account holder is letting the sitter on solely for the purpose of strategic advantage in games, point gain, etc., then it is treated as the next level of Major/Severe infraction as noted in the Community Guidelines'
I do hope this clears up any other questions that you have, Rodion.
-rd
Hell no! The sitter in question made a pretty dumb move! He attacked me in a no spoils build up game with no real purporse. Besides, the sitter if FOEd by me and he probably knew that.
I was just thinking he didn't follow guidelines because the holder had around 100 turns to make (some with less than 2 hours remaining), yet he decided to play my game (which had 22+ hours remaining), so we can clearly say the holder was not in danger of losing the turn.
Am I right?
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
jefjef wrote:Rodion wrote:rdsrds2120 wrote:The above example is an account of Account Hijacking, in which case the sitter does get in trouble.
If the Account holder is letting the sitter on solely for the purpose of strategic advantage in games, point gain, etc., then it is treated as the next level of Major/Severe infraction as noted in the Community Guidelines'
I do hope this clears up any other questions that you have, Rodion.
-rd
Hell no! The sitter in question made a pretty dumb move! He attacked me in a no spoils build up game with no real purporse. Besides, the sitter if FOEd by me and he probably knew that.
I was just thinking he didn't follow guidelines because the holder had around 100 turns to make (some with less than 2 hours remaining), yet he decided to play my game (which had 22+ hours remaining), so we can clearly say the holder was not in danger of losing the turn.
Am I right?
No. Doesn't matter how much time. When I sit for someone from day X to day Y I will usually take all turns that are up (Depending how many turns and if I need a break) 100 games is a LOT to sit. He may have just made a mistake. I know after running hours of turns they all start to look the same and color confusion can set in. It's possible that he took turns on maps he knows and likes before the others. I do that sometimes. Let the ones I don't like or know sit while I take care of the others.
But even if he did do that intentionally it wouldn't be sitting abuse. It could be considered attempted intentional game throwing but that would be really really hard to prove. Now if he kept on doing it then yes.
Return to Conquer Club Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users