Outlaw Password Sharing and Account Sitting

[nippersean]

This idea is clearly totally nuts. Stop being silly. Read incanz post - and i you're worried about "abuse" post in c&a.
Stupidest idea ever- so if i go camping with my hooker, i lose right, cool.

[Incandenza]

I do worry though, that the people this suggestion attempts to protect are rather underrepresented in the forum user base.

Fair enough, but pretending that you speak for the casual player is a pretty big stretch. And like it or not, regular forum-goers have an outsized voice when it comes to stuff like this, and said voice has been pretty overwhelmingly against the original suggestion. Conjuring some fantasy of a casual player isn't going to change that.

[Metsfanmax]

I do worry though, that the people this suggestion attempts to protect are rather underrepresented in the forum user base.

Fair enough, but pretending that you speak for the casual player is a pretty big stretch. And like it or not, regular forum-goers have an outsized voice when it comes to stuff like this, and said voice has been pretty overwhelmingly against the original suggestion. Conjuring some fantasy of a casual player isn't going to change that.

I believe it is most certainly the case that the majority of CC players are not forum-goers and do not have friends to account sit for them. There are roughly 500,000 registered accounts on this site and maybe only 5% are listed as having at least one post on the forum. Is it too difficult to believe that most CC users do not have an account sitter?

[tennischamp5]

I do worry though, that the people this suggestion attempts to protect are rather underrepresented in the forum user base.

Fair enough, but pretending that you speak for the casual player is a pretty big stretch. And like it or not, regular forum-goers have an outsized voice when it comes to stuff like this, and said voice has been pretty overwhelmingly against the original suggestion. Conjuring some fantasy of a casual player isn't going to change that.

I wouldn't call it a fantasy. I'd think nearly a majority of those 18000 active players don't use sitters or constantly check the forums on a daily or even weekly basis. The minority that does however, is very active and invested in the game, and therefore, their voices are constantly heard, especially on issues like this which pertain to them.

[Incandenza]

I do worry though, that the people this suggestion attempts to protect are rather underrepresented in the forum user base.

Fair enough, but pretending that you speak for the casual player is a pretty big stretch. And like it or not, regular forum-goers have an outsized voice when it comes to stuff like this, and said voice has been pretty overwhelmingly against the original suggestion. Conjuring some fantasy of a casual player isn't going to change that.

I believe it is most certainly the case that the majority of CC players are not forum-goers and do not have friends to account sit for them. There are roughly 500,000 registered accounts on this site and maybe only 5% are listed as having at least one post on the forum. Is it too difficult to believe that most CC users do not have an account sitter?

You're assuming that just because someone doesn't post in the forum, that means they have no CC friends (or friends on CC, which is entirely different), which, well, you know what they say happens when you assume. Plus you're using the entirety of CC accounts, which is silly because some rather large percentage of that are people who signed up and then never returned. So, yeah, using the data you've provided, I'm not willing to believe that most CC users cannot find an account sitter. I'd certainly be curious to know what % of CCers have been sat for, but that doesn't seem to be the sort of datum that would be easily found.

I wouldn't call it a fantasy. I'd think nearly a majority of those 18000 active players don't use sitters or constantly check the forums on a daily or even weekly basis. The minority that does however, is very active and invested in the game, and therefore, their voices are constantly heard, especially on issues like this which pertain to them.

Again, forum-going and account sitting are not 1:1, and I dunno why you guys are sticking that that particular argument.

[Blinkadyblink]

Why are we assuming that this suggestion benefits more casual players? I would expect those players to care less about who they play than highly competitive ones. If you're playing for fun and don't care about score, what difference does it make if your opponent is better than you were expecting?

[Metsfanmax]

You're assuming that just because someone doesn't post in the forum, that means they have no CC friends (or friends on CC, which is entirely different), which, well, you know what they say happens when you assume. Plus you're using the entirety of CC accounts, which is silly because some rather large percentage of that are people who signed up and then never returned. So, yeah, using the data you've provided, I'm not willing to believe that most CC users cannot find an account sitter. I'd certainly be curious to know what % of CCers have been sat for, but that doesn't seem to be the sort of datum that would be easily found.

There are two issues here.

1. The question of how many people have account sitters. It is probably true that some people who don't post on the forums do have friends to sit for them. It is simply my assumption that most of those players do not have such friends. If you believe that they do, please come out and say so -- but right now, all you're saying is "that argument isn't perfectly logical." If you agree that probably the majority of CC players have no account sitters, then this is not an argument.

2. The question of forum representation. Regardless of how many people have sitters, it is definitely true that there are a lot of people who do not visit the forums regularly or at all, and statistically speaking most of those people will not have sitters, because most people get sitters from being in a clan or having friends on the forums. So there's a huge percentage of the CC community simply not being represented in this discussion. If you look at this thread, nearly every single person who has posted is a heavy forum-goer, and either in a clan or associated with Team CC. It is quite clear that the average user is not represented in this discussion. And that is the group of people we're talking about here.

[Nola_Lifer]

You're assuming that just because someone doesn't post in the forum, that means they have no CC friends (or friends on CC, which is entirely different), which, well, you know what they say happens when you assume. Plus you're using the entirety of CC accounts, which is silly because some rather large percentage of that are people who signed up and then never returned. So, yeah, using the data you've provided, I'm not willing to believe that most CC users cannot find an account sitter. I'd certainly be curious to know what % of CCers have been sat for, but that doesn't seem to be the sort of datum that would be easily found.

There are two issues here.

1. The question of how many people have account sitters. It is probably true that some people who don't post on the forums do have friends to sit for them. It is simply my assumption that most of those players do not have such friends. If you believe that they do, please come out and say so -- but right now, all you're saying is "that argument isn't perfectly logical." If you agree that probably the majority of CC players have no account sitters, then this is not an argument.

2. The question of forum representation. Regardless of how many people have sitters, it is definitely true that there are a lot of people who do not visit the forums regularly or at all, and statistically speaking most of those people will not have sitters, because most people get sitters from being in a clan or having friends on the forums. So there's a huge percentage of the CC community simply not being represented in this discussion. If you look at this thread, nearly every single person who has posted is a heavy forum-goer, and either in a clan or associated with Team CC. It is quite clear that the average user is not represented in this discussion. And that is the group of people we're talking about here.

Disagree. Just because users don't participate in the forums doesn't mean they aren't "lurking." I'd say majority users lurk than actually participate in the forums. Secondly, what does this have to do with account sitters? Thirdly, just because some users abuse pws or other users don't use sitters at all doesn't mean that the whole community should be affected by a few. If certain users are that serious about CC then they would seek out a sitter.

[Metsfanmax]

Disagree. Just because users don't participate in the forums doesn't mean they aren't "lurking." I'd say majority users lurk than actually participate in the forums.

If they lurk but don't post, we still have no idea what they're thinking, so their opinions don't factor into these decisions.

Secondly, what does this have to do with account sitters? Thirdly, just because some users abuse pws or other users don't use sitters at all doesn't mean that the whole community should be affected by a few. If certain users are that serious about CC then they would seek out a sitter.

The OP contends, and I agree, that it is quite the other way around -- the few users who do have account sitters have an advantage over the majority of the community that don't. This position is tantamount to saying that if you are serious about CC, the game's odds should be stacked in your favor.

Anyway, I'm going to shut up now and let other people talk. I just wanted to point out that representation is an issue here, regardless of how the discussion turns out.

[GallantPellham]

This is a worse idea than lace on football uniforms, ok maybe just for the quarterbacks. It is not practical in a world of grown ups with jobs, Family's, or health problems.

[drunkmonkey]

Clearly, this is a good idea, because although everyone posting thinks it's a horrible idea, we think people who don't post in the forum would probably think it's a good idea. And they outnumber forum posters like a billion to 1.

[Uncle Death]

This is a worse idea than lace on football uniforms, ok maybe just for the quarterbacks. It is not practical in a world of grown ups with jobs, Family's, or health problems.

I appreciate this sentiment. I could point out that those you describe probably won't lose sleep over missing some turns. I'm not trying to ram this down anybody's throat. I'm expressing my opinion and pointing out that it is not fair to all players. I think Metsfanmax has made a very good argument of that point.

[TheForgivenOne]

I still everyone is making an anthill out of a grain of sand of this predicament. Just because people don't post, doesn't mean they don't have friends/family on the site. I've seen quite a few users come into Live Chat, who don't have a forum post, asking if someone can sit for them. I sit for 2 users who don't post on the site. Why? Because both are competitive and don't want to lose games.

And those arguing that you may be versing someone who is better than expected, well, you very well may be playing someone who is worse than the said player being sat for.

[jghost7]

I'm expressing my opinion and pointing out that it is not fair to all players.

Incorrect. All players on CC have the option to have a sitter should they have the need. "All players" can. That sounds pretty fair to me. If only a certain section of CC were permitted to have sitters, then that would not be fair. There is no vacation system or anything else to make use of when it comes to real life requiring us to be away at times. The simple fact is that this is the system that we have for now. If you so wish to make use of it, great. If you don't want to make use of it, great. Telling everyone that they shouldn't because you don't want to is not in the best interest of CC or its customers. When the management develops an alternate strategy for players to manage their accounts during away time(ie vacations, sitter features, etc) , then you can run down this road.

[Uncle Death]

So if power goes out in my building, or if the internet craps out at work, I should miss turns. If on Friday my boss says "Hey, Inc, you have to go somewhere godforsaken on short notice with no guarantee of internet access" (which does indeed happen in my profession), I should miss turns. If my grandmother dies (I couldn't find a sitter for the couple of days around the funeral a few years ago, so I believe missed most of my turns), I should miss turns.

Look, there are more than two states of being, more than just "at home with full internet access" and "on a planned vacation". Yes, if I'm going away for two weeks for a vacation I've known about for months, I'll cycle down games. But shit comes up. And some games last a long time. Who here can absolutely guarantee they'll never go 24 hours without internet access over the next month? Not everyone has an iphone.

And I strongly disagree with Chuck's statement above. If indeed clan members are engaging in the nefarious actions he's described (and it's my opinion that such abuses are pretty rare), then such should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, rather than using a nuke to kill a fly. More to the point, using the "it can be abused" excuse to eliminate something that's popular and useful is a total cop-out. It's an admission that no one is willing to consider shades of gray or alternative solutions. It's just giving up, throwing up one's hands and saying "Well, I guess this can't be solved".

On a personal note, and speaking of crap arguments, I think the next person who uses a professional sport as a comparison for "how things should be on CC" should be punched in the face. This idiotic comparison needs to be squashed with extreme prejudice. As Beta Banger suggested, if you want to pay me cash money for winning games, then it's a valid comparison. Until then, come up with a better goddamn argument.

I guess I missed the part where this somehow benefits the casual user, who, let's not forget, make up the vast majority of players on the site. If you're going to let the actions of a few people in a specialized area f*ck the casual players out of a very useful bit of functionality, then maybe it's clans that should be outlawed, since clearly this is an issue because some people's clan sitting.

Personally, I'd very much like to know more about the proposed sitting function that various members of Management have mentioned. I recall Optimus starting a thread about such a function some months ago, and the function he described was ghastly and ill-conceived. Hopefully Management's thinking on the concept has advanced since then.

I'm disappointed in your response Incandeza not because of your opinion against it but in the dismissive, insulting, and condescending way you argue your point. I respect you and your clan. The near hysterical attacks by some of the players against makes me wonder about the motives. It' making me think that you know it's an unfair advantage for your class of players and you are afraid to lose it. When I refer to class I mean highly skilled, connected, and involved. Some of the arguments smack of elitism.

We seem to keep dancing around the issue of it being fair or not to take over somebody's account. I haven't found it in the rules. Perhaps somebody can show me where it started.
At some point an allowance was given for players to take the turns of others who will miss their turn due to reasons out of their control. It's become something else. How many turns are being taken without prior consent of the player for that specific turn. I've been in a few clans and it's not uncommon for passwords to be passed around. Is somebody seriously going to tell me that in these clan tourneys that when a player can't be reached before a turn looks like it's going to be missed that the turn isn't preemptively taken by other members of a team or clan? Is that how it was supposed to evolve?

Please keep this civil and polite. I think it's a good thing the community can debate what I think is an important matter of ethics regarding the game.

[Uncle Death]

I'm expressing my opinion and pointing out that it is not fair to all players.

Incorrect. All players on CC have the option to have a sitter should they have the need. "All players" can. That sounds pretty fair to me. If only a certain section of CC were permitted to have sitters, then that would not be fair. There is no vacation system or anything else to make use of when it comes to real life requiring us to be away at times. The simple fact is that this is the system that we have for now. If you so wish to make use of it, great. If you don't want to make use of it, great. Telling everyone that they shouldn't because you don't want to is not in the best interest of CC or its customers. When the management develops an alternate strategy for players to manage their accounts during away time(ie vacations, sitter features, etc) , then you can run down this road.

I would point out that equal opportunity and fair are not the same thing. Metsfanmax covered this very well. Clan members and older members do have an advantage in getting qualified account sitters.

[jghost7]

I would point out that equal opportunity and fair are not the same thing. Metsfanmax covered this very well. Clan members and older members do have an advantage in getting qualified account sitters.

Then join a clan, get a friend, talk to someone. You can do it! Just try. If you are not satisfied with your current options at sitter then expand your friend base. If you think that Clan members have the best sitting pool, then by all means, join in on the fun and get involved with a clan of your choice. If the clan thing is not your scene, play some games with some regular CC'ers and find someone that way, chances are they were looking for someone too. So, once again, all players in CC have the opportunity to have sitters. And you are able to join a clan if you wish, so that really is not a good rejoinder. If a player makes the effort, then I am sure that he/she can have a sitter.


Here is a link to a mention of account sitting for you. It is one I located real quick. There may be others, I don't know, but you said you could not find it.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7785

[TheForgivenOne]

Then join a clan, get a friend, talk to someone. You can do it! Just try. If you are not satisfied with your current options at sitter then expand your friend base. If you think that Clan members have the best sitting pool, then by all means, join in on the fun and get involved with a clan of your choice. If the clan thing is not your scene, play some games with some regular CC'ers and find someone that way, chances are they were looking for someone too. So, once again, all players in CC have the opportunity to have sitters. And you are able to join a clan if you wish, so that really is not a good rejoinder. If a player makes the effort, then I am sure that he/she can have a sitter.

To add onto this, you could probably PM a mod to sit your account for you. I've been asked by quite a few "non forum-goers" to sit for them.

[Uncle Death]

I would point out that equal opportunity and fair are not the same thing. Metsfanmax covered this very well. Clan members and older members do have an advantage in getting qualified account sitters.

Then join a clan, get a friend, talk to someone. You can do it! Just try. If you are not satisfied with your current options at sitter then expand your friend base. If you think that Clan members have the best sitting pool, then by all means, join in on the fun and get involved with a clan of your choice. If the clan thing is not your scene, play some games with some regular CC'ers and find someone that way, chances are they were looking for someone too. So, once again, all players in CC have the opportunity to have sitters. And you are able to join a clan if you wish, so that really is not a good rejoinder. If a player makes the effort, then I am sure that he/she can have a sitter.


Here is a link to a mention of account sitting for you. It is one I located real quick. There may be others, I don't know, but you said you could not find it.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7785

Thanks I scrolled down far enough and found it. I'm in a clan, and have been in several over the years. I've already said I have account sat and have had it done for me. I have a dozens of people who will do it for me and play better than I do.

I understand the reasons we all have done it. I realize a lot of people like it the way it is. I'm not convinced it's a majority but I could be wrong. I believe we would be better off without it. We'll find out as arguments go back and forth between people who agree with me and those who don't if there is a consensus or not. I'm hoping those with the power to make the change will give my viewpoint a fair look. That's all I ask. I'll abide by whatever decision is made and I won't complain about it. My stance is known. I'll also point out that the majority is not always in the right.

[jghost7]

I believe we would be better off without it.

I'm expressing my opinion and pointing out that it is not fair to all players.

You are making a suggestion/complaint based on what exactly? I initially thought you were referring to a fairness issue. I believe that was addressed. Is there another reason other than personal preference? I understand that you had a suggestion that you thought would be good for CC. I respect that. I just wanted this to be clear.

I'm hoping those with the power to make the change will give my viewpoint a fair look. That's all I ask.

I am sure that they have already given this topic loads of thought...lol. I am confident that it will be given its due process.

I believe we would be better off without it. We'll find out as arguments go back and forth between people who agree with me and those who don't if there is a consensus or not. ... I'll also point out that the majority is not always in the right.

What is the point of arguments and the like if "the majority is not always in the right"? It seems to me to be a self defeating statement. I am thinking that if you were of that mind then you would simply have made the suggestion without "encouraging a debate". Then when it doesn't go your way you can point out that "the majority is not always in the right."

I also wanted to get the idea out there so it could be examined and compared to the account sitting that is being done now.

I believe this is the wrong forum for this.

It's cheating but we all do it, so it's okay.

No, we "all" don't. Account sitting is not cheating. It is within the rules if done within the CC guidelines. If you suspect someone of cheating, then you should report them in the C&A forum.



Either way, I believe that this will be addressed, After, an alternative measure has been put in place to address the function that account sitting currently serves. Once it has been put into service, and tested thoroughly, then this suggestion can be explored. I believe that it would be premature to implement your suggestion sooner than this.

[Metsfanmax]

What is the point of arguments and the like if "the majority is not always in the right"? It seems to me to be a self defeating statement. I am thinking that if you were of that mind then you would simply have made the suggestion without "encouraging a debate". Then when it doesn't go your way you can point out that "the majority is not always in the right."

A large chunk of this topic was devoted to the observation that the majority in this thread does not necessarily correspond to the majority of CC users.

[drunkmonkey]

What is the point of arguments and the like if "the majority is not always in the right"? It seems to me to be a self defeating statement. I am thinking that if you were of that mind then you would simply have made the suggestion without "encouraging a debate". Then when it doesn't go your way you can point out that "the majority is not always in the right."

A large chunk of this topic was devoted to the observation that the majority in this thread does not necessarily correspond to the majority of CC users.

You could say that for any topic. What is the point of this forum if you're just going to tell those weighing in that they're wrong?

[Metsfanmax]

What is the point of arguments and the like if "the majority is not always in the right"? It seems to me to be a self defeating statement. I am thinking that if you were of that mind then you would simply have made the suggestion without "encouraging a debate". Then when it doesn't go your way you can point out that "the majority is not always in the right."

A large chunk of this topic was devoted to the observation that the majority in this thread does not necessarily correspond to the majority of CC users.

You could say that for any topic. What is the point of this forum if you're just going to tell those weighing in that they're wrong?

The point of these topics is to have debate about suggestions to refine them and then submit them to the webmaster. Ultimately they never show the actual popularity of a suggestion since comparatively few people post in this forum. A lot of people seem not to realize this because they post polls and whatnot to pretend a suggestion is popular among the user base. All it shows is that it's popular among the people that frequent this forum, there's no way around it. The best thing we can do is have a substantive debate about the suggestion and let the webmaster decide.

[Uncle Death]

I believe we would be better off without it.

I'm expressing my opinion and pointing out that it is not fair to all players.

You are making a suggestion/complaint based on what exactly? I initially thought you were referring to a fairness issue. I believe that was addressed. Is there another reason other than personal preference? I understand that you had a suggestion that you thought would be good for CC. I respect that. I just wanted this to be clear.

I'm hoping those with the power to make the change will give my viewpoint a fair look. That's all I ask.

I am sure that they have already given this topic loads of thought...lol. I am confident that it will be given its due process.

I believe we would be better off without it. We'll find out as arguments go back and forth between people who agree with me and those who don't if there is a consensus or not. ... I'll also point out that the majority is not always in the right.

What is the point of arguments and the like if "the majority is not always in the right"? It seems to me to be a self defeating statement. I am thinking that if you were of that mind then you would simply have made the suggestion without "encouraging a debate". Then when it doesn't go your way you can point out that "the majority is not always in the right."

I also wanted to get the idea out there so it could be examined and compared to the account sitting that is being done now.

I believe this is the wrong forum for this.

It's cheating but we all do it, so it's okay.

No, we "all" don't. Account sitting is not cheating. It is within the rules if done within the CC guidelines. If you suspect someone of cheating, then you should report them in the C&A forum.



Either way, I believe that this will be addressed, After, an alternative measure has been put in place to address the function that account sitting currently serves. Once it has been put into service, and tested thoroughly, then this suggestion can be explored. I believe that it would be premature to implement your suggestion sooner than this.

I'm not very good at picking out and quoting each portion of an argument so forgive me.

You say my one point was self-defeating. That may look that way but it's because I'm being as open and honest as i possibly can.

I think account sitting at all is a cheat but I'm not calling players cheaters for doing it. It is allowed and I have done it. I'm saying we should stop it.

I have put it out there in other threads. I made it official here. I've seen ideas dismissed by posters piling on simply because they said it was in the wrong thread. That's why it is here now.

I simply ask that everyone examine the issue. Do you think it is an ethical practice? If you are against the proposal because the current practice benefits you, can you agree that it is shady at the least. Is it just a little shady? Do you agree that the practice is abused? Are players unable or unwilling to admit that somebody else playing your turns and winning a game for you is not a win at all? Can you simply not admit the truth or do you argue against something you don't want and refuse to acknowledge the truth of an argument you can't refute? None of you can tell me or yourselves in the mirror that when you have somebody else take over your game or play a significant number of your turns that you deserved the points you won when you win. You can't tell me that you didn't get an advantage in a tourney where you chose teams to compete and other players than the ones listed took the turns that prevented you from a loss. (Forgive me, I'm sure many of you can and will.) I just saw it happen. Telling me that everybody does it doesn't make it right. It just makes it reality. You think everybody cheats on their taxes so you do it too? Would you say because of that you didn't cheated on your taxes?

We are doing something wrong. If I had been a philosophy major maybe I could explain this better. Unfortunately I wasn't. If you can't see that there is an ethical issue here then I'm sorry. Some of you see it and are ignoring it and won't admit it. That's what I think I'm seeing here.

[jefjef]

Ethical reasons? You do realize that this is an online game site and not real life. Right? We play for fun. No money. No real world glory. It's something most of us do for FUN. Some of us PAY to have fun and like our investment to at least be maintained during our absence. It's no fun to have to tend to real life and have what we do for pleasure ruined or our friends games ruined or punish those that also do this for fun to have to needlessly wait for turns to expire especially if they have only 4 games.

Only an extreme few abuse sitting. They get caught. They get punished.