Outlaw Password Sharing and Account Sitting

[Metsfanmax]

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.

This is not a fair argument at all. Nearly every single negative response to this proposal has been to the effect that it's not fair to the people who don't abuse the sitting allowance to ban it because of the people who do. These are not actually responses to the suggestion. What I talked about above is the heart and soul of this discussion. The most important thing we can discuss in relation to this suggestion is whether people will enjoy the game more if account sitting is banned. I can't think of a better way to frame the debate. The OP believes that the game will just be better all around if account sitting is precluded. I believe that there is a legitimate argument for this, and want there to be a debate about whether account sitting actually diminishes the quality of the game. Most of the responses to this topic have really avoided this concept, and so I don't consider them to be reasons to send this to rejected just yet (though the other Suggestions moderators may disagree).

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.

This is exactly the sort of discussion I would like to have. You see, when I join a game, I'm expecting to play the people whose names are in the player list. In many ways, any given game is as much a psychological battle against your opponents as it is a strategic game on the map. A successful player gets into the head of his opponent, figures out what kind of responses they will make based on their prior history. Account sitting changes all that - it means that at any given time, you could be in a situation where the game dynamic has changed quite a bit because you didn't foresee someone with a totally different outlook on the game making moves for that player. If the player instead misses their turn, sure they're at a disadvantage because they might lose a bonus or something, but at least the psychological dynamics of the game of have not changed -- you'll know how he will respond when he does come back. When I play a game, I do not want to play anyone other than the name I see in the player list, even if that person has to miss some turns. It's just part of the game as I see it.

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.

I do not debate this as a moderator, I debate it as a competitor on CC. You'll notice there are many threads in this forum that I won't post in for the sake of giving the minority's side a chance. I'm doing that for this suggestion because I actually do think that account sitting affects the game in a negative way.

I can't speak for the other moderators here but I think 3.5 days is not quite enough time to be certain that new ideas and thoughts will not be shared; the fact that I have dominated the discussion thus far does not mean I am the only supporter. In the mean time, I think we can have a meaningful discussion about what I've just said above, but by no means are you required to participate in it if you do not wish to.

[jefjef]

The most important thing we can discuss in relation to this suggestion is whether people will enjoy the game more if account sitting is banned.

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.

Waiting for turns to be missed - deferred troops - having partners/opponents deadbeat all = way less game enjoyment and I bet fewer active players which also equals fewer games + opponents and less site enjoyment.

Long story short. Many of us PAY to play and prefer to have our for fun and relaxation investment cared for during our absences. Those who are here to play also appreciate not having to watch the clock fade away or have some bs deferred troop drop appear after having to watch time expire.

[Dukasaur]

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.

Shouldn't this be a joint responsibility?

Look at it this way: On one side there's people who say, "this is being abused, let's remove it." On the other side you have people who say, "yes there's abuses, but there's less drastic ways to deal with them than an outright prohibition." Why should the first group be solely responsible for finding the middle ground? Why shouldn't the second group be looking for the middle ground too?

[Night Strike]

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.

Shouldn't this be a joint responsibility?

Look at it this way: On one side there's people who say, "this is being abused, let's remove it." On the other side you have people who say, "yes there's abuses, but there's less drastic ways to deal with them than an outright prohibition." Why should the first group be solely responsible for finding the middle ground? Why shouldn't the second group be looking for the middle ground too?

Because the 2nd group IS the middle ground.

[Incandenza]

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.

Shouldn't this be a joint responsibility?

Look at it this way: On one side there's people who say, "this is being abused, let's remove it." On the other side you have people who say, "yes there's abuses, but there's less drastic ways to deal with them than an outright prohibition." Why should the first group be solely responsible for finding the middle ground? Why shouldn't the second group be looking for the middle ground too?

Because the 2nd group IS the middle ground.

Very well said.

[jghost7]

Nearly every single negative response to this proposal has been to the effect that it's not fair to the people who don't abuse the sitting allowance to ban it because of the people who do. These are not actually responses to the suggestion.

Nice. I think you are minimizing your opponents posts. Less than a handful of the opposing responses had that as their main point. Also, the OP and some followup posts made references to abuse, so why complain if someone addresses your reasoning regarding abuse? As I see it, very little has been proffered in support of this suggestion. The players who are in opposition to the suggestion have put up quite a few reasons for their belief. If you go back and read through the posts, I think you can agree that "Nearly every single negative response" is more than a stretch. And I can say that I have only brought it up in reply to a previously posted statement .

What I talked about above is the heart and soul of this discussion. The most important thing we can discuss in relation to this suggestion is whether people will enjoy the game more if account sitting is banned. I can't think of a better way to frame the debate. The OP believes that the game will just be better all around if account sitting is precluded. I believe that there is a legitimate argument for this, and want there to be a debate about whether account sitting actually diminishes the quality of the game. Most of the responses to this topic have really avoided this concept, and so I don't consider them to be reasons to send this to rejected just yet (though the other Suggestions moderators may disagree).

Really? This is why you have brought it up on your 17th post...3.5 days later? And you have said that you would prefer that there be no sitting. Which is fine, but why , would you suggest that this is the best option for everyone? It doesn't seem to be posted anywhere. I can tell you that I disagree with your position. Go back and read through the statements. Jefjef quoted himself, but there were others who expressed similar thoughts.


I know that I have posted several thoughts on the negative side, as have many others, covering a few angles. Thus far, I have from the proponents side, ...well...because they feel that it will make cc more fun...well..i think that's what you want to say. Oh yes, and the rank would be more accurate.

Is there anything else that you want to add to the 'for' side?

I do not debate this as a moderator, I debate it as a competitor on CC. You'll notice there are many threads in this forum that I won't post in for the sake of giving the minority's side a chance. I'm doing that for this suggestion because I actually do think that account sitting affects the game in a negative way.

I don't mind your debate at all. However, I would appreciate more support submitted with your posts. And, regardless, you are a moderator, and your actions are used as an example to others. Debate is fine, just don't drag it out unnecessarily.

I think we can have a meaningful discussion about what I've just said above, but by no means are you required to participate in it if you do not wish to.

Actually I don't think that any more discussion is needed on what you have just said above. I think that it is purely objective and that your opinion is your own and I will not deny you that. I have mine and would expect you to do the same.
I have never been required to participate in any aspect of CC at all. However, as an avid player, it is to my advantage to keep abreast and to participate in such a discussion, of which the outcome should have such a reaching effect on the CC community. Thanks, but I will stick around till they make their decision.

[nebsmith]

I diasgree with this idea, for a number of reasons.
I don't see that having someone sit your account for a short time is an advantage. Unless copious notes have been left for the sitter they will often have no real idea of what is going on in the game, particularly in fog. They may also have to cope with unfamiliar maps and settings.
As to clan members having an advantage, I don't really see that either. I am in a clan now, but before I joined I found some good team-mates and groups who it was fun playing singles with. I have been asked to cover for RL emergencies for some of them, and know they would cover for me if asked. I have asked for cover once and changed my password afterwards.
As for team games, having a partner deadbeat can often be a huge advantage to the remaining player. All those extra territories you suddenly gain. I have been in one balanced team game where a team won soley due to one of them getting kicked and am currently in a long running balanced team game, where if my partner hadn't been able to get a sitter, I could have gained a huge advantage.


While it may be true that the vast majority of CC user do not comment in these forums, two points:
1) assuming a majority of them would agree or disagree with something here, is just that, an assumption.
2) So what! If they don't care enough to participate, why should we care what they think.

Ok, so that last point is a bit harsh, but if you don't take part, I think you forefeit your right to complain about the outcome. Most communities seem to have a small percentage of people who actively participate and make the descisions for everyone. To me an appeal to the "silent majority" is an appeal to the uncaring or the content.

A final point about the number of people active in the forums. I very rarely post but I browse the forums most days. The reasons I don't often post are that: I have nothing substantive to add, don't care either way, or agree with the majority of the posts in a thread.
I have no idea how many others regularly browse but don't comment.

[Metsfanmax]

What I talked about above is the heart and soul of this discussion. The most important thing we can discuss in relation to this suggestion is whether people will enjoy the game more if account sitting is banned. I can't think of a better way to frame the debate. The OP believes that the game will just be better all around if account sitting is precluded. I believe that there is a legitimate argument for this, and want there to be a debate about whether account sitting actually diminishes the quality of the game. Most of the responses to this topic have really avoided this concept, and so I don't consider them to be reasons to send this to rejected just yet (though the other Suggestions moderators may disagree).

Really? This is why you have brought it up on your 17th post...3.5 days later? And you have said that you would prefer that there be no sitting. Which is fine, but why , would you suggest that this is the best option for everyone? It doesn't seem to be posted anywhere. I can tell you that I disagree with your position. Go back and read through the statements. Jefjef quoted himself, but there were others who expressed similar thoughts.

I thought it ought to be obvious that the point of implementing any suggestion is to make your CC experience more enjoyable. The issues about rank interpretation are important but no doubt side issues at best. I stated the obvious in that last post because it seems to me that maybe people are losing sight of this issue. What I see from your point of view is having lost sight of the fun side of the game -- it seems that way to me, at least, if you're taking it so seriously that a game will be "garbage" if you or your opponent miss a turn. It is not my place to tell you how to play the game, but I do think everyone would enjoy it more if they didn't get angry just because they missed a turn. The fun part of playing is planning and executing your strategies. Missing a turn might change or weaken a strategy, but you can still have fun implementing your modified strategy.

I know that I have posted several thoughts on the negative side, as have many others, covering a few angles. Thus far, I have from the proponents side, ...well...because they feel that it will make cc more fun...well..i think that's what you want to say. Oh yes, and the rank would be more accurate.

Your argument is no more subtle than mine is. You believe that missed turns have a negative effect on CC games and thus diminish your enjoyment of those games. I believe that I would enjoy games more if account sitting were not allowed. The fact that you have stated several reasons why you don't like missed turns does not make your point any more valid or thoughtful than mine. I did go in detail above as to why I don't like account sitting. I don't think you can reasonably ask me for more.

[jghost7]

I thought it ought to be obvious that the point of implementing any suggestion is to make your CC experience more enjoyable. The issues about rank interpretation are important but no doubt side issues at best. I stated the obvious in that last post because it seems to me that maybe people are losing sight of this issue.

No, it was posted that several players believed that this suggestion would only diminish their enjoyment of CC. I do believe that most posters have this in mind when they are posting. Also remember, that this is an objective argument, for both sides and only a majority would work here if were necessary to use.

What I see from your point of view is having lost sight of the fun side of the game -- it seems that way to me, at least, if you're taking it so seriously that a game will be "garbage" if you or your opponent miss a turn. It is not my place to tell you how to play the game, but I do think everyone would enjoy it more if they didn't get angry just because they missed a turn. The fun part of playing is planning and executing your strategies. Missing a turn might change or weaken a strategy, but you can still have fun implementing your modified strategy.

LOL, what a spin. You ever think of working for the news media? LOL
Love your descriptions...'taking is so seriously', 'get angry'.
No, I enjoy my games just fine. However, I do not believe missing turns a part of the game. It happens, but it takes away from the game.

Your argument is no more subtle than mine is. You believe that missed turns have a negative effect on CC games and thus diminish your enjoyment of those games. I believe that I would enjoy games more if account sitting were not allowed.

Currently, there is a procedure in place that helps in minimizing such occurrences and thereby enabling me to play complete, and enjoyable games. You propose to eliminate that procedure, and replace it with nothing. How do you think that will make CC better for EVERYONE? If you were to find an acceptable alternative to sitting then I think this suggestion could be revisited. People have things to do. Being able to schedule a vacation, go visit a relative in the hospital, going to a remote work site, fill in the blank, without disrupting play is important to the cc community as a whole. We play this game because we like it. It is something that we like enough to pay for it. I will tell you, that without an alternative put in place prior to the removal of the sitter, that fact will change. Some people have the time and ability to hover around their computers consistently and never leave. But for the majority of people who have signed on to be players here, we also have a life to live. If my games were affected constantly by numerous missed turns, either by me, or by others in games with me, I can tell you that I would eventually dismiss CC as a viable gaming site.

...I don't think you can reasonably ask me for more.

I think I can. As long as you are posting, I will. You do not seem to get it, and I will do my best to help you with that.

[Metsfanmax]

Currently, there is a procedure in place that helps in minimizing such occurrences and thereby enabling me to play complete, and enjoyable games. You propose to eliminate that procedure, and replace it with nothing. How do you think that will make CC better for EVERYONE?

I previously explained why I thought it would make CC better for everyone. The reason you see it this way is because you have been "raised," as it were, on a system where everyone has the privilege to effectively never miss a turn, and you see this is a privilege being taken away from you. I see it completely differently. Anyway, at this point you're not saying anything new, so I'm not going to continue this particular discussion with you, for the sake of others who want to get their two cents in.

[Leehar]

I think that I now see the issue with you here Mets is that you really haven't been involved in enough varied games to know the detrimental effect of missed turns. From your games it seems you do play a lot of multi-player singles and it's readily acceptable that missed turns have a minimal effect on the game where account sitting may not, mostly due to the large amount of time it takes between turns, and the large amount of players so that the game is not ruined because of it.

However, predominantly for singles and team it has a huge impact on the end result. I was recently just involved in a singles game where the opponent was unable to get online over the weekend, and I can conclusively state thats why he lost. He did get deferred troops, but the missed turns were instrumental enough to cause his defeat. I'm not happy at having won that way in what could have developed into a challenging game, and he's also understandably crushed that it resulted in his defaulting pretty much even if he didn't actually deadbeat. Similarly we've had numerous examples about how missed turns have ended up with lopsided team games either due to deferred troops/regions or other such incidences. That really doesn't lead to a worthwhile game, and ghosts claim of a game becoming garbage/useless is very pertinent in that environment.
So I think it would be well for you to acknowledge that missing a turn can do a lot more than just change or weaken a strategy in these game types I've mentioned, as opposed to it's relatively little effect in the types of games you frequent when it seemingly is negligible, and thereby that it does create a less enjoyable atmosphere for all concerned. Therefore, account-sitting really is one of the most useful tools at our disposal to avoid such liabilities, and to outlaw it completely is undeniably harmful in the greater environment than your somewhat-limited view(seemingly).

[Metsfanmax]

I think that I now see the issue with you here Mets is that you really haven't been involved in enough varied games to know the detrimental effect of missed turns. From your games it seems you do play a lot of multi-player singles and it's readily acceptable that missed turns have a minimal effect on the game where account sitting may not, mostly due to the large amount of time it takes between turns, and the large amount of players so that the game is not ruined because of it.

The majority of my games by far are standard games, either 1v1 or multiplayer. In fact I have played more 1v1 standard games than standard games with more than two players. I do admit that I play far fewer team games but that does not mean I am unfamiliar with them.

However, predominantly for singles and team it has a huge impact on the end result. I was recently just involved in a singles game where the opponent was unable to get online over the weekend, and I can conclusively state thats why he lost. He did get deferred troops, but the missed turns were instrumental enough to cause his defeat. I'm not happy at having won that way in what could have developed into a challenging game, and he's also understandably crushed that it resulted in his defaulting pretty much even if he didn't actually deadbeat. Similarly we've had numerous examples about how missed turns have ended up with lopsided team games either due to deferred troops/regions or other such incidences. That really doesn't lead to a worthwhile game, and ghosts claim of a game becoming garbage/useless is very pertinent in that environment.
So I think it would be well for you to acknowledge that missing a turn can do a lot more than just change or weaken a strategy in these game types I've mentioned, as opposed to it's relatively little effect in the types of games you frequent when it seemingly is negligible, and thereby that it does create a less enjoyable atmosphere for all concerned. Therefore, account-sitting really is one of the most useful tools at our disposal to avoid such liabilities, and to outlaw it completely is undeniably harmful in the greater environment than your somewhat-limited view(seemingly).

The beauty of being a premium player is that I can play as many games as I want. I don't really care if a game becomes much easier because of someone's missed turns because I can just play another with the same settings if I want to try again. My point of view is that it's the actual planning and implementation of a turn that is the bulk of the enjoyable CC experience. If I miss a turn or two and come back to a game that I have no chance of winning, I'm not upset because that does not diminish the fun I had while I was still competitive in that game. Anyone who lets missed turns diminish that enjoyment is missing out, I think, and the same is true for anyone who gets tied to the outcome of any particular game because it was lost in a certain way.

Admittedly the story is a bit different in Clan Wars/Tournaments, but I refer to the point I made above -- we only have such a serious competition environment because of account sitting. I don't think a less serious environment would hurt anybody. It would just be qualitatively different. I play on a chess site similar to this one in its correspondence play style, and account sharing is expressly prohibited -- if you time out and lose your game, you lose your game. That site still has twice as many registered users as this one. I know comparing chess and Risk is not fair but the point remains. People can get behind an environment where only you play your turns.

[tennischamp5]

After all this, honestly, I feel like things will hopefully be resolved once that new sitting policy comes into effect. Maybe that will be a suitable 'middle ground'.

[jefjef]

You believe that missed turns have a negative effect on CC games and thus diminish your enjoyment of those games. I believe that I would enjoy games more if account sitting were not allowed.

Perhaps you can understand it this way.

I had been freemium a couple diff times. Missed turns/deadbeating is a game enjoyment killer for freemium players and definitely has a negative effect. Not enjoyable at all.

Missed turns and the follow up deferred troops also definitely diminish game enjoyment.

[jghost7]

I play on a chess site similar to this one in its correspondence play style, and account sharing is expressly prohibited -- if you time out and lose your game, you lose your game. That site still has twice as many registered users as this one. I know comparing chess and Risk is not fair but the point remains. People can get behind an environment where only you play your turns.

And...? So...? What..? Is that site named Conquer Club? Does that site have the same dynamics, or same audience as CC? Get real. On the subject of other sites, I will say this; They all have some form or procedure for vacations or time away. Vacations, variable time outs, etc... I can set a game for 3 wk timeouts, or I can set a vacation for 2 wks and come back to the game then, or some other way not listed here. And none have only a 24 hour time limit with no other options for vacations or other time limits.
You would like to compare the registered users of a chess site and here and say that it is because ' People can get behind an environment where only you play your turns.'. LOL, sigh....gotta love the logic here.

I previously explained why I thought it would make CC better for everyone. The reason you see it this way is because you have been "raised," as it were, on a system where everyone has the privilege to effectively never miss a turn, and you see this is a privilege being taken away from you. I see it completely differently. Anyway, at this point you're not saying anything new, so I'm not going to continue this particular discussion with you, for the sake of others who want to get their two cents in.

Funny that you say that, when this was brought up about you earlier...LOL. Once again, nothing relevant or new added here. LOL on 'raised' .....This is not the only turn based site I have played on. I am aware that there are other ways to do things. I am also aware of how other sites do things. LOL on raised.







Leehar hit it on the head. Your particular point of view seems to be closer to the unique side. There is nothing wrong with that in and of itself. But when you keep coming back again and again and retype your same statements over and over again, well, I think it gives off a negative impression.

[Metsfanmax]

Funny that you say that, when this was brought up about you earlier...LOL. Once again, nothing relevant or new added here. LOL on 'raised' .....This is not the only turn based site I have played on. I am aware that there are other ways to do things. I am also aware of how other sites do things. LOL on raised.







Leehar hit it on the head. Your particular point of view seems to be closer to the unique side. There is nothing wrong with that in and of itself. But when you keep coming back again and again and retype your same statements over and over again, well, I think it gives off a negative impression.

This is not a debate about me or my personality. It is a discussion about the merits of account sitting. Please keep it on topic.

[jghost7]

This is not a debate about me or my personality. It is a discussion about the merits of account sitting. Please keep it on topic.

No one mentioned your personality, only your point of view(opinion). Please don't take it personally, but you wish to debate an objective subject, so your point of view comes into play. If you wish to keep in on topic, keep it on topic. I have no issues here with being on topic.

[Metsfanmax]

This is not a debate about me or my personality. It is a discussion about the merits of account sitting. Please keep it on topic.

No one mentioned your personality, only your point of view(opinion). Please don't take it personally, but you wish to debate an objective subject, so your point of view comes into play. If you wish to keep in on topic, keep it on topic. I have no issues here with being on topic.

Well I believe that all salient points have been raised by all sides who have contributed so far so I am going to leave this open a little longer to see who else wants to contribute.

By the way -- it's subjective. An objective subject is one in which personal opinions are irrelevant.

[jghost7]

Well I believe that all salient points have been raised by all sides who have contributed so far so I am going to leave this open a little longer to see who else wants to contribute.

By the way -- it's subjective. An objective subject is one in which personal opinions are irrelevant.

Thank you for that , you are correct. My mistake.

[Dukasaur]

Look at it this way: On one side there's people who say, "this is being abused, let's remove it." On the other side you have people who say, "yes there's abuses, but there's less drastic ways to deal with them than an outright prohibition." Why should the first group be solely responsible for finding the middle ground? Why shouldn't the second group be looking for the middle ground too?

Because the 2nd group IS the middle ground.

Very well said.

Yes, it's a very clever riposte. But being clever doesn't make it true.

Fact is, turn sitting has gotten out of hand, to the point where it's just legalised multiple accounts. The josko.ri thread over in C&A is just one illustration, and as many posters in that thread have pointed out, the only reason josko got caught is that he's honest enough to admit when he's taking a turn for someone else. In most cases the person taking all the turns just doesn't bother admitting it, and it goes undetected.

I recently had a big mess to clean up in the Jules Verne tournament because of the DJENRE fiasco, which wasn't even a deliberate abuse, just people carrying on running a dead person's account just because it has become the accepted norm to do that. And when I was PMing players in that tournament to get their input, you wouldn't beleive how many responses I got saying, "hi, this is ___ turnsitting for ___, he won't be back for a week or so but I'm sure he's okay with it." I think in one 8-player game I found 5 people who weren't playing themselves. 5/8, that's how common it is!

This has gone waaaay beyond someone covering the occasional turn for someone who is ill or has their Internet connection fail. It is at the point where you go into a game and you really don't know who you are playing.

Now, I agree that completely banning turn-sitting would be going too far. I think someone who is genuinely ill or has to work an double shift at work or whatever shouldn't be penalized by missing turns and taking hits to their score. But something needs to be done to rein in the rampant and flagrant abuse, and I don't see why people who want to preserve turn-sitting shouldn't be trying to fix the problem.

[Night Strike]

Look at it this way: On one side there's people who say, "this is being abused, let's remove it." On the other side you have people who say, "yes there's abuses, but there's less drastic ways to deal with them than an outright prohibition." Why should the first group be solely responsible for finding the middle ground? Why shouldn't the second group be looking for the middle ground too?

Because the 2nd group IS the middle ground.

Very well said.

Yes, it's a very clever riposte. But being clever doesn't make it true.

Fact is, turn sitting has gotten out of hand, to the point where it's just legalised multiple accounts. The josko.ri thread over in C&A is just one illustration, and as many posters in that thread have pointed out, the only reason josko got caught is that he's honest enough to admit when he's taking a turn for someone else. In most cases the person taking all the turns just doesn't bother admitting it, and it goes undetected.

I recently had a big mess to clean up in the Jules Verne tournament because of the DJENRE fiasco, which wasn't even a deliberate abuse, just people carrying on running a dead person's account just because it has become the accepted norm to do that. And when I was PMing players in that tournament to get their input, you wouldn't beleive how many responses I got saying, "hi, this is ___ turnsitting for ___, he won't be back for a week or so but I'm sure he's okay with it." I think in one 8-player game I found 5 people who weren't playing themselves. 5/8, that's how common it is!

This has gone waaaay beyond someone covering the occasional turn for someone who is ill or has their Internet connection fail. It is at the point where you go into a game and you really don't know who you are playing.

Now, I agree that completely banning turn-sitting would be going too far. I think someone who is genuinely ill or has to work an double shift at work or whatever shouldn't be penalized by missing turns and taking hits to their score. But something needs to be done to rein in the rampant and flagrant abuse, and I don't see why people who want to preserve turn-sitting shouldn't be trying to fix the problem.

1. It's now summer time, so a LOT of people are going to be gone from time to time. That game just got unlucky to have multiple people gone at once.

2. It wasn't just a clever riposte because it really is true. The status quo is to keep account sitting as it is. The extreme response is to ban all account sitting. The middle ground is to recognize that actions like in the josko thread should be considered abusive and dealt with when they arise. There's no reason to punish everyone for the bad behavior of some.

[Metsfanmax]

2. It wasn't just a clever riposte because it really is true. The status quo is to keep account sitting as it is. The extreme response is to ban all account sitting. The middle ground is to recognize that actions like in the josko thread should be considered abusive and dealt with when they arise. There's no reason to punish everyone for the bad behavior of some.

You know, if Dukasaur is correct in saying that

Fact is, turn sitting has gotten out of hand, to the point where it's just legalised multiple accounts. The josko.ri thread over in C&A is just one illustration, and as many posters in that thread have pointed out, the only reason josko got caught is that he's honest enough to admit when he's taking a turn for someone else. In most cases the person taking all the turns just doesn't bother admitting it, and it goes undetected.

then your approach simply isn't enough. It's obviously good if we punish people who break the rules, but the point is that the current system allows for a type of nearly undetectable rule-breaking that can only be determined by the multi hunters who are looking for those abuses. Now, I don't know how many instances there are of account sitting without any posts in game chat to that effect, but if it's a non-trivial number, then the status quo system is failing if preventing abuse is something we want to take seriously.

Since we have this thread here, what does everyone think of a vacation system? I know that in the past there have been suggestion threads to, say, give people more time. I'm thinking of a system where you'd have X days of vacation per year to use at your leisure, and maybe a few times per year one day of that vacation would automatically be triggered in the event of running out of time. You could also set your vacations manually for a certain number of days less than or equal to X if you know you'll be out of town. That is a middle ground.

[SirSebstar]

checking this is not GD and vacations is not the OP's suggestion. But i think it does fit as a possible improvement. However vacation button or something is really hard to do, after all, can i go on holiday in a highstakes escalating game? and how do i get back into it, or does the entire game gets halted?

Next to that account sitting abuse is noticable, its just a bit more work. it is far from bein near undetectable, even if nobody writes in game chat. An alternative solution is currently in the works though.

I am stumped as to find a reasonable ruling though. Is babysitting in a clanwar or checking in to advice in a fog game totally illegal. Many say yes, and point to the rules where you can only sit for someone who cannot take his own turn and not for any other kind of advantage.
I think that it is also true that it is allowed to make a snapshot of the game and post it or whatever, so the end result is the same. This is the sliding scale argument, I can do X by not going into your account, but it is much faster to do so, so I do it.

Suppose I play only during a 2 hours window a day. Normally I would take all games, but in a particular map I have a teammate that is much better then myself. He is online outside of my 2 hour window. So I simply do not take my turn in waiting for advice. Now I cannot take my turn. The better teammate takes the turn because I am going to miss it otherwise. Is that allowed? It is more within the guidelines to take a turn that is about to be missed, so in that respect it is okay, but in fact it would still violate if nothing else the paragraph about strategic advantage. There is a fine border between ease and abuse.

As to the question about a vacation button. I don’t know how that would like. So I’d have to know before I am against or pro. Moreover however, I am not always online, so onle being sat for when you press a vacation button is also not the way to go.

[jghost7]

Hey Mets, could you create another thread and leave the link here so that this discussion with the 'middle ground' can be pursued further? This suggestion thread should be left for the purpose of the suggestion.

Thanks,
J

[Metsfanmax]

Well, any discussion of a system other than the one suggested in the OP is strictly off topic, but I was fishing for a system that sounds like it is agreeable before I make a full thread for it. Many people in this thread did suggest that a vacation system or something similar would be the appropriate middle ground, and a vacation system is an alternative to account sitting (that is, account sitting will still be banned entirely), so I do not find it unreasonable to discuss it as the middle ground in this topic; it is, as I see it, possibly an improvement to this suggestion that can be incorporated depending on the community's feelings. That is, if you would support the vacation system as I suggested above, then you really are OK with not having sitters in general, so long as there's still a mechanic for avoiding missed turns. After all, I believe most of us would rather take our own turns if it is at all feasible. Does this sound reasonable?

A discussion about what appropriate account sitting is, does not really belong in this forum at all because it is not a suggestion about how to improve site features or mechanics, but simply a guideline for the C&A mods and the community. Also, based on the C&A topics lately, I'm afraid to direct the discussion that way...