Conquer Club

King Achilles precedent-setting previous ruling wrote:A user or group of users who loosely share their accounts among one another to improve their score and gaming by means of strategically allowing others to take their turns for them at specific times, or allowing well versed and ranked users to essentially play select games on their account for them to boost their score and rank, is another facet of Account Sitting Abuse.

So far, the case has it's point to show us that there are players out there who loosely share their passwords with one another so that they can take care of each other's accounts. This practice is bordering in account sharing and influences the account owners to be less responsible of their games, since they already have this thinking that someone is going to save them from missing at least one turn or more.

For this case, at some point, [player] could/should have simply told the other players to stop relying on him to take turns for them. Account sitting is for a definite period of time and NOT for an indefinite period. You can't assign an account sitter to account sit for you for as long as his blood is running into his veins. Then you can now sleep soundly whenever or do other stuff because you know he is going to save you from missing a turn. If you are capable of taking your turn, then take it. Do not make someone be responsible for your own account or lean too much for his advise.

Should we be thankful when you are on vacation, and you are supposedly not available to be online at the time, but you still manage to take some turns while leaving other games for your sitter? Perhaps it just gives more complication as it becomes suspicious if you really are unavailable in the first place or if you just assigned someone to play some specific games for you.

We know that people share their passwords with others in case of emergency. Some may also be guilty of playing other people's turns even when not needed simply because they have free access to that account. How can this be controlled? We certainly do not want to discourage people not posting in the game chat if they are sitting for someone for fear of any possible issues regarding account sitting. Until a sitter feature is encoded, it would be impossible to control this practice and it mostly falls on you not to abuse your privileges or share your accounts with one another.

#1_stunna wrote:

Ace Rimmer wrote:

#1_stunna wrote:

is that josko?

eddie2 wrote:lol this thread turned funny. But one thing i have noticed is that a lot of clans are using the excuse that sitting comes under tourney rules. where sitters are allowed to sign up for games. this part does need to be confirmed by masli. i have seen where players are getting close to the limit so sign up someone they are sitting for thinking it is ok when it is not.

Rodion wrote:That's an interesting defense, but it is mostly based on appeal to reputation. It doesn't work that way against undeniable evidence (check the Commander62890 case for reference).

For instance, I'll give you 2 clear cut cases (in my view). And that is only considering 2011, your clan got a huge freebie with this abuse prescription of not really considering things from 2010, but I digress.

Game 9157574 - the point here is that account sitting parts from the premise that a player will not be able to take the turn for himself. There are 12 posts that can be used as evidence that Dako HAD access before his 24-hour deadline would expire and therefore your sitting was not in compliance to the strict CC sitting guidelines ("only sit if in danger of missing the turn").

Game 8687933 - same as above, but change "12 posts after the sitting took place" for "11 posts before the sitting took place".

As a reminder, you were pretty quick in condemning KoRT back in the Josko case.
Bones' case on KoRT basically had logs of forum posts and other played games showing that the players that Josko had sat for were online in the 24-hour span of the turn.
Here, Josko's case on TOFU basically has logs of forum posts and other played games showing that the players that CoF had sat for were online in the 24-hour span of the turn.
A different ruling would defy both logic and law.

lord voldemort wrote:eddie has a point even if he sucked at explaining it...
@ bones....clan games are tourny games as you know...so the confusion is...in the sitting rules you can join new games when sitting if they are tournament.
and masli is the head of clans now...so it falls upon him or admin to make this ruling.

Lindax wrote:

lord voldemort wrote:eddie has a point even if he sucked at explaining it...
@ bones....clan games are tourny games as you know...so the confusion is...in the sitting rules you can join new games when sitting if they are tournament.
and masli is the head of clans now...so it falls upon him or admin to make this ruling.

Correction: Clan games are NOT tournament games. Maybe some of the same rules apply, but I don't think that's official or even published anywhere.

I may be wrong on the second part, in which case I would love to stand corrected (please include pertinent links).

Lx

ljex wrote:

Lindax wrote:

lord voldemort wrote:eddie has a point even if he sucked at explaining it...
@ bones....clan games are tourny games as you know...so the confusion is...in the sitting rules you can join new games when sitting if they are tournament.
and masli is the head of clans now...so it falls upon him or admin to make this ruling.

Correction: Clan games are NOT tournament games. Maybe some of the same rules apply, but I don't think that's official or even published anywhere.

I may be wrong on the second part, in which case I would love to stand corrected (please include pertinent links).

Lx

Actually clan games are tournament games as clans are using the tournament games to create their private and track-able games. You will notice as proof that when searching for the games of a clan war in game finder you do so through tournament finder. Thus by code they are tournament games

That is not to say that the rules are or should be the same for each

lord voldemort wrote:Thats my point...the confusion...Obviously I can tell the difference between a clan and tourny game

Bones2484 wrote:Are you able to ever not go completely off-topic in a thread?

shaneback wrote:It has been stated a couple times that it is ok for sitters to join CLAN WAR games, but not casual clan games.

I am looking for a public post on it, but all the ones I can find are in the CD forum.

Part of the problem is some people can not tell the difference between clan war games and tournament games.

While we enjoy the hospitality of the TD's letting us use the tournament database, we really need our own. And an accounting sitting feature...

shaneback wrote:i'll keep looking but I am pretty sure it has been said in a public thread

reptile wrote:Josko, in all honesty i think you just need to drop it. I could post a whole page of stuff to defend CoF but really i dont have the time right now to do so. I have played along side CoF for a long time and i have been a member of CC since 2006. CoF fought beside me a long while also. To get to the point, i have met a lot of people on CC over the years. I have gotten to know Simon fairly well over this time. Of all of the people i have met on conquer club i respect CoF the most. I honestly think that you are wasting your time even posting anything.

As he posted a few posts above LoW too has a list of account sitters and yes i believe i still even have his phone number from when he was in LoW...for account sitting purposes. What you are saying just does not match up with the CoF that i know. In LoW we sit for eachother but NEVER HAVE WE DONE IT ONLY IN SPECIFIC GAMES. He is a very good person to have as a friend and a clan member for this very reason.

If i am going to miss a turn, i would choose a non tournament or non clan game to be the ones that i missed. There fore if i was account sitting for someone else and only had limited time, YES i would take the clan games and tournament games first as long as time allowed. I'm sure most would do the same.

I could look back and find a forum called TEN MOST RESPECTED PLAYERS ON CONQUER CLUB, and guess who was mentioned the most by random people on the site... i would say that CoF was either the top or in the top 3 for that list easily. There were tons of people i had never even seen or heard of before that were voting for him, even i was very surprised (and i already have held CoF high as it is) at just how many people knew and liked him. He does NOT PLAY CHEAP, CHEAT or anything of that sort (at least on purpose). I really think that you should just drop it. There are a ton of people that would go to bat for him. And I am for sure one of them, i am the Leader of Legends of War and always have been and even though he left us and took half of my guys with him he is still tops on my list.

I understand that you are upset with how you were punished for account sitting and how it happened and all, but seriously, this is ridiculous. I am surprised that this wasn't dismissed as soon as you created this thread.

CoF remains one of the most honest players i know on CC, and you wont find many here that know more people than i do. I speak from experience.

Lets all just move on off of this and enjoy Conquer Club. Spend our time doing other things rather than arguing over this.