Outlaw Password Sharing and Account Sitting

[elfish_lad]

Gawd... I can't believe I'm stooping to this jefjef, The Elf using a Meta-Netz form... but here goes:

+1

[jghost7]

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 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.

This is about what it should look like. I have not argued much other than the fairness issue. I have concerns on how you are presenting the suggestion/issue/complaint, not necessarily the suggestion itself. I do not support your suggestion, but I do not mind you making it. I think we get that you dislike the current practice and suggest that the site management change its current policies to prohibit it. Fine. However, you are not supporting your cause with your follow up posts. I am not sure what the correct terms are to describe them, top of the head would be inflammatory, emotional, ...something along those lines. I am saying that they will not bring constructive replies. They will reply to the emotion or implied offense of whatever reply has grabbed their ire and will not help the suggestion along.

Ok, on to specifics.

I think account sitting at all is a cheat...

Ok, YOU feel it undermines the integrity of the game. Fine. But done within the guidelines, It is not cheating. Simple. And, in most cases, it usually lasts a turn to a couple of turns? Not a big deal. It provides the players with a means to handle their games whenever they need to be away for whatever reason. Other gaming sites have ways in place to deal with these things so don't run into this particular issue. When management finishes with their project and implements it then this will no longer be an issue. From your statement I am guessing you are more peeved at the abuses of the account sitting. I understand that abuses occur in this current system, but they are dealt with on a case by case basis and handled accordingly.

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?

Can you say loaded question? I will not bother with the loaded questions here, and just let them stand as emotional appeals.

I simply ask that everyone examine the issue. Do you think it is an ethical practice?

I examined it personally. I think, given our current status and done within the posted guidelines , that this is an acceptable practice.

...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.

Sounds like this could be something you could pursue in C&A. Yes abuse happens. It pervades every aspect of society, so why should CC be different. That is why there is a whole team that specializes in this. Let them help you make your CC experience better. I am fully behind you in pursuing abusers. They are usually the impetus for suggestions like this one.

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?

Really? LOL. I guarantee you that if you cheated on your taxes, then there would be no discussion on whether you cheated on your taxes. Somewhere in the 6 million pages of fine print, the rule you broke, is clearly spelled out in 6000 words. NIce.... Sorry, couldn't help myself....

We are doing something wrong...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.

Seems like a 'IMO, or I feel... or something along those lines is needed here. You do not seem to acknowledge an alternate side than your own here.

[Metsfanmax]

Uncle Death, that is not the correct way to address this problem. It is not a question of ethics at all, it is simply a question of what we want a player's rank to indicate. If your suggestion would be implemented, a player's rank would be a direct reflection of both their CC skill and how reliable they are at taking their turns. In the current system, a player's rank is not at all clearly attributable to that person alone. That's the only real way to look at this. The OP clearly argues for the former system, but it also seems that most of the people who post here are willing to have a cloudy interpretation of their rank as long as they can maximize its numerical value. It is not immoral or unethical, it's just what these people want.

[jefjef]

but it also seems that most of the people who post here are willing to have a cloudy interpretation of their rank as long as they can maximize its numerical value. It is not immoral or unethical, it's just what these people want.

This is the wrong way to view sitting.

There are an extreme few that have abused the privilege and sit for point/strategic gain. They get caught and they get busted. I'm sure not 100% have been caught but I am sure the ones who abuse the system constantly do get caught.

As a sitter of many accounts I will tell you that when I or whoever steps into ongoing games that I/they have not been playing from the start it is not a guaranteed strategic gain for who is being sat. If there are a lot of games it reduces the time spent to study each turn and read chat and affects the quality of the move and people I sit for often play maps and settings that I do not play and often the turn that is taken only maintains/progresses the game and not always for the better.

[Incandenza]

Uncle Death, that is not the correct way to address this problem. It is not a question of ethics at all, it is simply a question of what we want a player's rank to indicate. If your suggestion would be implemented, a player's rank would be a direct reflection of both their CC skill and how reliable they are at taking their turns. In the current system, a player's rank is not at all clearly attributable to that person alone. That's the only real way to look at this. The OP clearly argues for the former system, but it also seems that most of the people who post here are willing to have a cloudy interpretation of their rank as long as they can maximize its numerical value. It is not immoral or unethical, it's just what these people want.

O-ho, that's at least a slightly more interesting argument. But now you've fallen into the trap of decreeing that a player's rank should reflect both skill AND availability. Again, people don't have bright shining lines between "I have internet access" and "I have no internet access". So let's have a look at who might be at extra risk for missing turns, shall we?

Right off the bat, anyone who wants to play CC who doesn't live in a major metropolitan area in a westernized country is screwed, because rural areas and less developed countries have patchier internet reliability. There's also people that can't afford smartphones (or who simply can't play the game well on a smartphone). There's anyone with a job with irregular hours or short-notice travel. Oh, and there's anyone who would consider CC more important than a spontaneous real-life trip. These are but a few of the myriad of reasons why a player would need an emergency sitter

So you're saying that rank should be a reflection of both skill and the fact that a player either is or is not a relatively prosperous person in an urban area with an office job and no family. Gotcha. That's enlightened of you. What you're also saying is that you don't think that I, personally, should be allowed to join a top clan, where missed turns are to be avoided at all cost (because the whole bloody point of a clan is trying to determine relative skill in as stripped-of-luck context as possible), because I can't guarantee that I'll be able to have internet access every 24 hours for the next month. Thanks, I appreciate that.

Of course, as we all know, rank and skill often have little to do with each other in the first place, as it's more a reflection of choice of games and teammates. Any general on the site would be a major after a few months of assdoodles or playing with random teammates.

This idea of a "pure" rank is utter malarkey, of course, and ultimately no better than "it could be abused" or "this isn't the way the English Premier League would handle things" as a coherent argument. Nor is this preposterous idea of "ethics" a real argument either. Simply disapproving of something isn't a reason to force change on people who aren't in any violation of the rules. I don't think people with thousands of games under their belt should be able to play freestyle 1v1s against people with 10 games in, but I'm not going to try and strip said veterans of what joy they can extract from such games. Uncle, you're more than welcome to refrain from having someone sit your turns if you have such a moral issue with the practice. But I'd prefer that you not agitate to substantially degrade my access to and enjoyment of the site.

You two aren't stupid, so I have no idea why you're so vehemently pushing what is patently a Stupid Idea. More to the point, I don't see why you'd rather have lack spend his time coding some byzantine new security system when he could be, y'know, upgrading the game itself. Seems like a colossal waste of time, like building a moat around a house with a cracked foundation. I just wonder what it must be like to want to see more missed turns and fewer overall games.

[Leehar]

I just wonder what it must be like to want to see more missed turns and fewer overall games.

As mets said, it's so that we can get a more direct reflection of points and skill... which seems naive at best

[Metsfanmax]

O-ho, that's at least a slightly more interesting argument. But now you've fallen into the trap of decreeing that a player's rank should reflect both skill AND availability. Again, people don't have bright shining lines between "I have internet access" and "I have no internet access". So let's have a look at who might be at extra risk for missing turns, shall we?

It's not a decree, it's a statement of the obvious. If a player does not have regular access to the internet, he will lose games and his rank will drop. It doesn't make me elitist to point that out.

Right off the bat, anyone who wants to play CC who doesn't live in a major metropolitan area in a westernized country is screwed, because rural areas and less developed countries have patchier internet reliability. There's also people that can't afford smartphones (or who simply can't play the game well on a smartphone). There's anyone with a job with irregular hours or short-notice travel. Oh, and there's anyone who would consider CC more important than a spontaneous real-life trip. These are but a few of the myriad of reasons why a player would need an emergency sitter

So you're saying that rank should be a reflection of both skill and the fact that a player either is or is not a relatively prosperous person in an urban area with an office job and no family. Gotcha. That's enlightened of you. What you're also saying is that you don't think that I, personally, should be allowed to join a top clan, where missed turns are to be avoided at all cost (because the whole bloody point of a clan is trying to determine relative skill in as stripped-of-luck context as possible), because I can't guarantee that I'll be able to have internet access every 24 hours for the next month. Thanks, I appreciate that.

Those clans would be a lot more accepting of missed turns if there were no sitters, because everyone would be missing turns.

Of course, as we all know, rank and skill often have little to do with each other in the first place, as it's more a reflection of choice of games and teammates. Any general on the site would be a major after a few months of assdoodles or playing with random teammates.

I don't care much about rank in the first place, but the rest of you obviously seem to, which is why this suggestion is so vehemently opposed.

This idea of a "pure" rank is utter malarkey, of course, and ultimately no better than "it could be abused" or "this isn't the way the English Premier League would handle things" as a coherent argument. Nor is this preposterous idea of "ethics" a real argument either. Simply disapproving of something isn't a reason to force change on people who aren't in any violation of the rules. I don't think people with thousands of games under their belt should be able to play freestyle 1v1s against people with 10 games in, but I'm not going to try and strip said veterans of what joy they can extract from such games. Uncle, you're more than welcome to refrain from having someone sit your turns if you have such a moral issue with the practice. But I'd prefer that you not agitate to substantially degrade my access to and enjoyment of the site.

You two aren't stupid, so I have no idea why you're so vehemently pushing what is patently a Stupid Idea. More to the point, I don't see why you'd rather have lack spend his time coding some byzantine new security system when he could be, y'know, upgrading the game itself. Seems like a colossal waste of time, like building a moat around a house with a cracked foundation. I just wonder what it must be like to want to see more missed turns and fewer overall games.

I'm not vehemently pushing anything, I'm just encouraging a substantive debate as I indicated that I wanted to do earlier. I don't really care what y'all do with your ranks, but it's quite clear that right now the interpretation of a player's rank is cloudy at best when he can have any range of better or worse players consistently taking some of his turns for him.

[jefjef]

but it's quite clear that right now the interpretation of a player's rank is cloudy at best when he can have any range of better or worse players consistently taking some of his turns for him.

Consistently...

Hey mets - some people only need a sitter a couple times a year. That isn't consistently and woulld not make a players rank all "cloudy".

Now PLEASE stop trolling...

[SirSebstar]

JefJef, considering the OP want to ban all sitting, some other players fight for the right to sit and be sat at their discretion, its not that much a stretch.
It is not about if anybody is consistently being sat for, because that would be multi-abuse, not just sitting abuse, but that certain forms of sitting abuse happen and are apparently (possibly) condoned by some players who remain nameless...

How would you feel is one player in the clan, advised every single game(by entering the account and leaving gamechat) and played them when he felt like it?

[Uncle Death]

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.

I have to admit that's a good point. I might have stayed on the soap box too long with the ethics angle. I think there's a lot more out there not getting caught.

[PLAYER57832]

Wow! Never expected this to get as much debate as it has!

A few points:
1. missed turns is about continuing to play, not "judging the person", per se. That is, if I get into a game, is it worse to play with someone who misses or someone who deadbeats? Deadbeating can throw a whole game into spiral, particularly in team games and those with lots of players.

2. Life happens. Some games go on for months.. literally. Expecting that beginning a game means you know your future for the next several months.. are agreeing to be utterly tied to having a daily internet connection is a bit much, even in today's "connected" world. Allowing someone to step in on occasion is a reasonable answer.

3. Rank? Well, its pretty clear that a lot of people think rank means something other than what it really means. What it is most definitely NOT is an assessment of one's overall CC skill. At best, it gives a relative measure of your skill versus that of those you play against, in specific game types and categories. Only those who gain high rank by playing random maps (or taking pains to play a variety prior to installation of the random choice) AND multiple settings can truly say their rank reflects their overall skill. Even then, there is and always will be a fair amount of luck involved. The skill only shows itself over a very long period of time.. and on some maps, not even then. Some maps are so heavily based on luck that they will skew any idea of skill. I know many want to dismiss those maps for that very reason, but others like them. That is one of the nice things about CC... there are many pieces for many tastes. However, to claim that rank is much more than a very, very rough relative gauge of those maps you have played recently is just wrong.

4.Per abuse.. it might be possible to set more restrictions on who can account-sit, but most of the ideas I have seen are just to unwieldy to work.

[Night Strike]

If your suggestion would be implemented, a player's rank would be a direct reflection of both their CC skill and how reliable they are at taking their turns. In the current system, a player's rank is not at all clearly attributable to that person alone.

Really? Your rank has nothing to do with playing team games or having horrible players suicide in escalating games or having someone kill the wrong target in assassin games? If any of those scenarios contribute to your rank, then rank is not a direct reflection of a single player.

[jefjef]

How would you feel is one player in the clan, advised every single game(by entering the account and leaving gamechat) and played them when he felt like it?

That would be account sitting for strategic gain and subject to disciplinary actions. You know that.

Just because 1 or 2 or 3 do that crap you do not punish the thousands of us who legitimately need to have a sitter every now and then and don't abuse the system...

[Uncle Death]

Uncle Death, that is not the correct way to address this problem. It is not a question of ethics at all, it is simply a question of what we want a player's rank to indicate. If your suggestion would be implemented, a player's rank would be a direct reflection of both their CC skill and how reliable they are at taking their turns. In the current system, a player's rank is not at all clearly attributable to that person alone. That's the only real way to look at this. The OP clearly argues for the former system, but it also seems that most of the people who post here are willing to have a cloudy interpretation of their rank as long as they can maximize its numerical value. It is not immoral or unethical, it's just what these people want.

I admit I went a little off the rail there with the ethics issue because I was frustrated at some of the arguments not addressing what you just did so well.

[Mr Changsha]

Keep at it uncle death...you would blow a hole in my arrangements to be sure, but I agree it would make for a far more interesting and unpredictable game.

Also it is fun watching them all squeal.

I would cope ok under a no-sitting rule (well hey I only play about 8 games at a time)...I would like to see some of these 100+ games at a time guys really feel the full impact of their cc-choices..rather than palming their games off when they get a bit tired.

These guys would lose RANKS if they miss...that's why they are blubbing away like little girls.

Finally...I am sure the vast majority of premium members have no sitter. I suspect most of them keep a 'reasonable'schedule of games. It is the hardcore obsessives this would piss off in the main.

And I am all in favour of that.

[tennischamp5]

I would cope ok under a no-sitting rule (well hey I only play about 8 games at a time)...I would like to see some of these 100+ games at a time guys really feel the full impact of their cc-choices..rather than palming their games off when they get a bit tired.

These guys would lose RANKS if they miss...that's why they are blubbing away like little girls.

Finally...I am sure the vast majority of premium members have no sitter. I suspect most of them keep a 'reasonable'schedule of games. It is the hardcore obsessives this would piss off in the main.

And I am all in favour of that.

Haha, i can vouch for that, premium and no sitter

[Metsfanmax]

Hey mets - some people only need a sitter a couple times a year. That isn't consistently and woulld not make a players rank all "cloudy".

That's true, but no doubt there are a number of players that have had more than only a couple turns per year sat for them. I don't accuse anyone of site abuse here, I simply note that once you allow people to take turns for you, it is more than just yourself that is responsible for your outcomes in games.

Really? Your rank has nothing to do with playing team games or having horrible players suicide in escalating games or having someone kill the wrong target in assassin games? If any of those scenarios contribute to your rank, then rank is not a direct reflection of a single player.

This is true with or without account sitting. Allowing account sitting adds another variable to the equation when it comes to interpreting a player's rank, and it is a variable that some people would like to do without.

Wow! Never expected this to get as much debate as it has!

Neither did I. I was expecting a couple pages of "absolutely not" from people and then to send it to Rejected. I am pleased that there is a real discussion going on here, even though the majority of the responses seem to favor account sitting as it stands now.

[jefjef]

I don't see why people keep on demanding something when it is clear they aren't going to get it. ^

I only see like 3 people in here supporting this. Yet they are making half the posts... The reasons you site for the need of this are for abuses that are all ready moderated. Maybe you all can come up with a credible suggestion to implement more restrictions and more severe punishment for account/sitting abuses.

[Metsfanmax]

The prohibition of abuse is not the main benefit of this feature, although it is a nice side effect. The main reason we would implement this is because we want to simply change what's allowed on CC, and to make it clear that every person's rank is a product of turns they did (or did not) take in their games, and not a product of turns their friends took for them. In fact, most of the criticism in this thread has been from people saying that this is too draconian of a response to the abuses, but if you read the OP carefully, this has never really been about the site abuses. Those abuses just highlight the murky nature of any account-sharing system.

[Uncle Death]

I don't see why people keep on demanding something when it is clear they aren't going to get it. ^

God bless you for your clarity. I'm certainly not comparing the two but there was this whole civil rights thing back in the 60's you may have heard of?

You don't really want to stifle free thought do you? I think there has been more than 3 who like the idea. The current situation does "bogus up" several things about the game. Our current point totals being the foremost probably.

[jefjef]

I don't see why people keep on demanding something when it is clear they aren't going to get it. ^

God bless you for your clarity. I'm certainly not comparing the two but there was this whole civil rights thing back in the 60's you may have heard of?

You don't really want to stifle free thought do you? I think there has been more than 3 who like the idea. The current situation does "bogus up" several things about the game. Our current point totals being the foremost probably.

UncleD. Real cute spin.

That was a line metsfan just used in a C&A thread... It was very appropriate here too.

You speak of stifling. Banning sitting and trying to out post those who oppose this sugg is also stifling.

Good luck with your agenda. It's an unrealistic idea that basically has zero support.

Bye.

[jghost7]

The prohibition of abuse is not the main benefit of this feature, although it is a nice side effect. The main reason we would implement this is because we want to simply change what's allowed on CC, and to make it clear that every person's rank is a product of turns they did (or did not) take in their games, and not a product of turns their friends took for them.

Quite frankly, I don't care what you think about anyones rank. It is not a prime indicator of most players game skill anyways. The fact of the matter is that most people do not gain a significant tactical advantage simply because someone sits a turn for them. Rank doesn't mean much.
Now look at it this way. You would take away CC's only method of 'vacation' and not replace it with any substitute. Pros= none or minimal Cons= You would be handcuffed to the site, when something happens and you miss turns you would screw up perfectly good games for you and your partners. The 'fun factor' would be diminished. People would say screw it and more people would probably end up quitting the site.
Look, I am only asking you to be realistic. The current system is not perfect. Nor will any that will replace it. The proposed sitter feature will just be a modified version of what you are proposing to quit. A true vacation option will be rejected based on the game times ballooning horribly. The game time limits being set to 24 hours will always require you to be at or near a computer. I respect your desire for a 'true rank' , but the cost of what you propose is too high. It will have to be submitted along with a proposal of how to replace the current system of away time.

In fact, most of the criticism in this thread has been from people saying that this is too draconian of a response to the abuses, but if you read the OP carefully, this has never really been about the site abuses. Those abuses just highlight the murky nature of any account-sharing system.

The main reason for this is that most of the support provided for this suggestion is referencing or suggesting instances of abuse. Therefore most of the replies to said posts will respond in kind. There has not really been a lot of positional support behind the suggestion. Mostly it seems to be a personal preference of some. I would not mind it if there were some other method of handling absences/vacations in place already.

BTW,

...but if you read the OP carefully, this has never really been about the site abuses.

from to OP

I don't need to outline the abuses this has caused to the community...however, CC needs to regain it's integrity by playing by the rules and no longer allowing players to circumvent them by popular consensus...Conquer Club and the game has been corrupted by password sharing and account sitting.

Sure does sound like references to abuse to me, and can see how others may take it for the same.

[Metsfanmax]

Quite frankly, I don't care what you think about anyones rank. It is not a prime indicator of most players game skill anyways. The fact of the matter is that most people do not gain a significant tactical advantage simply because someone sits a turn for them. Rank doesn't mean much.
Now look at it this way. You would take away CC's only method of 'vacation' and not replace it with any substitute. Pros= none or minimal Cons= You would be handcuffed to the site, when something happens and you miss turns you would screw up perfectly good games for you and your partners. The 'fun factor' would be diminished. People would say screw it and more people would probably end up quitting the site.
Look, I am only asking you to be realistic. The current system is not perfect. Nor will any that will replace it. The proposed sitter feature will just be a modified version of what you are proposing to quit. A true vacation option will be rejected based on the game times ballooning horribly. The game time limits being set to 24 hours will always require you to be at or near a computer. I respect your desire for a 'true rank' , but the cost of what you propose is too high. It will have to be submitted along with a proposal of how to replace the current system of away time.

The meaning of someone's rank just highlights the more fundamental issue here -- it seems that people are unable to have fun playing even if they lose. You are quite clearly stating here that a game will not be fun for you if you lose because you missed a turn. I just can't get behind that point of view. I enjoy most games that I play even if I end up losing (although of course I'm like everyone else and get mad when I lose 20v3 -- but that's not what we're talking about here). I started talking about rank because I believe that's why people don't like the idea of losing for this reason -- it will directly impact their rank in a preventable way (preventable, at least, for those who can find sitters). If the fundamental issue is that you guys don't have fun when you're not winning, we can talk about that as well.

On the other hand, have you ever been in a situation where you were losing a game and it got saved because at the crucial moment, the leading player missed his turn? Or been in an escalating game where the person before you is going to make the easy kill and then swoop to victory on a chain of cashes, but he misses his turn and you get to claim it? I know I have been in that position. It might have felt like a slightly cheap way of winning, but it still felt great and I still got the "W" in my column. So it does go both ways.

[jghost7]

The meaning of someone's rank just highlights the more fundamental issue here -- it seems that people are unable to have fun playing even if they lose. You are quite clearly stating here that a game will not be fun for you if you lose because you missed a turn. I just can't get behind that point of view. I enjoy most games that I play even if I end up losing (although of course I'm like everyone else and get mad when I lose 20v3 -- but that's not what we're talking about here). I started talking about rank because I believe that's why people don't like the idea of losing for this reason -- it will directly impact their rank in a preventable way (preventable, at least, for those who can find sitters). If the fundamental issue is that you guys don't have fun when you're not winning, we can talk about that as well.

Wow, dude, of that whole response, this is what you pick to reply to? This should be in itself a reason to lock this topic and put it in for review. You add no reason for or against the proposed suggestion. I understand that you wish to have a "substantive debate". Fine. Add something. And you seem to be the big poster for this suggestion. Since you said..

Anyway, I'm going to shut up now and let other people talk.

you have posted seven times, not adding much regarding the suggestion. I am just saying....

If I lose a game, I lose a game. The varying reasons for the loss will of course have an effect on my enjoyment of the game. But losing due to a missed turn is garbage, whether you are the one losing , or you win because of it. I believe most players would rather win a straight up game where the garbage is limited to the dice. I am aware that while not everyone shares my opinion, most would prefer that the games are played and not missed.

(preventable, at least, for those who can find sitters)

As stated before, given the effort, everyone can find a sitter.

If the fundamental issue is that you guys don't have fun when you're not winning, we can talk about that as well.

This is an irrelevant statement. This has nothing to do with the suggestion. Please omit or expound on its relevancy to the suggestion.


You are a moderator for this forum. Is this really an example of how a moderator is supposed perform his/her task? I understand that you have your opinion. I can even understand that you may have wanted to encourage a substantive debate on it. However, I believe that you have gone beyond your stated intentions or responsibilities as a moderator. If there are more relevant support for the suggestion, then the supporters of this suggestion should bring it forward. However, if there are no more NEW points to be heard, then this should be reviewed now.

Thank you for your dedication to your post.


I truly do not believe that anymore relevant reasons will be forthcoming for this thread. Can the mods now lock it up and begin their administrative process on it?

[Leehar]

If I lose a game, I lose a game. The varying reasons for the loss will of course have an effect on my enjoyment of the game. But losing due to a missed turn is garbage, whether you are the one losing , or you win because of it. I believe most players would rather win a straight up game where the garbage is limited to the dice. I am aware that while not everyone shares my opinion, most would prefer that the games are played and not missed.

+1
Important point I feel that may otherwise have been missed. For some of us, missed turns are a much more negative factor to game enjoyment then any non-abusive turn sitting used to avoid them.