Conquer Club

I choose to interpret the OP's complain as there is something wrong with account sitting. Any solution therefor is not off-topic, although his first solution is to ban it entirely. I think it fits here.. brings live back to these forums.

I've backed off from posting anymore in this thread because I was being criticized for trying to dominate it. I felt a need to respond to many of the posts. I had hoped this would be a lively debate. I am sincere in wanting a ban to account sitting. I just feel it is the right thing to do and I accept opposing view points. I don't think it's unfair to bring up the abuse of it as well. Eliminating it would decrease that i think. Most players are honest and will abide by the rules even if they can be circumvented easily. Any player that is proud of their rank but cheated to get it aren't going to keep playing for long unless they are mentally disturbed. I suspect that will get jumped on quickly.

I do want to thank all the participants for or against, even those that implied I was stupid for making my suggestion. Thank you. I have nothing more to say that I haven't already said so I will leave this thread alone and wait for the outcome. It will probably go my way now that I've sent Lack a great big check.

Metsfanmax wrote: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.

Mets... you've got to be kidding me with this. You're telling me you'd enjoy the game more if there were no account sitting, even at the expense of clan wars and tournaments?

Now granted, I see the point of the OP... ranks are corrupted because of account sitting.
To him, I respond, using myself as an example:
I'm currently a major, with 42 active games. 36 of them are tournament games; of those, 19 are from tournaments that have been going on for over a year, including several games that are in round 100+. Say I had a vacation coming up next week. Obviously, I could have lessened my game load to prepare for it, but it's unlikely I could've gotten much below 25.
a. Do you believe it's fair for me to lose all of these games?
b. Do you believe it's fair to my teammates/opponents in those tournaments if I deadbeated in all of those games?
c. Wouldn't my rank be MORE corrupt when I came back as a sergeant than it would be if I had a sitter?

dowian2 wrote:Mets... you've got to be kidding me with this. You're telling me you'd enjoy the game more if there were no account sitting, even at the expense of clan wars and tournaments?

I'm not going to drag this debate out again -- I stand by everything I've said so far. Let's leave it at that.

Now granted, I see the point of the OP... ranks are corrupted because of account sitting.
To him, I respond, using myself as an example:
I'm currently a major, with 42 active games. 36 of them are tournament games; of those, 19 are from tournaments that have been going on for over a year, including several games that are in round 100+. Say I had a vacation coming up next week. Obviously, I could have lessened my game load to prepare for it, but it's unlikely I could've gotten much below 25.
a. Do you believe it's fair for me to lose all of these games?

I know you asked these questions to the OP but I'm going to answer this one anyway because it's obvious. Yes, it is fair. Everyone has to deal with the same problem -- if they don't have access to the internet at least once per day, they will miss turns. And in fact the status quo is fair too -- everyone is allowed to obtain a sitter. But fair doesn't mean equal. In reality it's much more difficult for someone who doesn't frequent tournaments or the forums to find a sitter. The world of the OP is both fair and equal. And a world of the OP plus a vacation system is not only fair and equal, it also alleviates much of the missed turn problem. So why don't we discuss it?

Let's be clear here everyone -- an injustice does not exist simply because you committed to do something in real life that interferes with your internet life. This is not about fairness. We all have things come up in RL -- you could go on vacation next week and lose a few games because of it (if you don't have a sitter), but you'll probably also win a few over the course of the year due to your opponents' RL commitments, and your opponents in your current games will also probably lose some of their games due to missed turns. It most likely all balances out in the end. What we really should have been arguing about was whether the quality decrease of games due to those missed turns is more or less extensive than the quality decrease of games due to unknown players coming in and taking turns for your opponents with completely different strategies. I think most people asserted that missed turns are more damaging, but I would go so far as to say that many of them did not actually stop and really think about this before posting, and that's a shame because it's what the OP asked for. But no matter. I think the vacation system solves those problems. Maybe I'll create a thread if no one wants to discuss it here.

but I would go so far as to say that many of them did not actually stop and really think about this before posting,

Really. Why? Because we don't have the same opinion of the 3 supporters of this sugg?

Missed turns = SLOW SLOW GAMES
Missed turns = BS DEFERRED TROOPS
Deadbeats ruin the enjoyment of many games

Also consider this. Those wishing to dump points and get away with it will have lots and lots of games and suddenly go on vacation and with no sitter.... = ruined enjoyment and skewed ranks and scoreboard and...

This thread needs to die. The horse is dead.

jefjef wrote:

but I would go so far as to say that many of them did not actually stop and really think about this before posting,

Really. Why? Because we don't have the same opinion of the 3 supporters of this sugg?

Because a good number of the responses either referred to the famous sitting abuses recently (not the main point of the OP), or because of comments like the following:

Missed turns = SLOW SLOW GAMES
Missed turns = BS DEFERRED TROOPS
Deadbeats ruin the enjoyment of many games

I get it. Missed turns are bad. I don't like missed turns either. The point is, did you ever stop to actually think about the benefits of a world with more missed turns, or did you just automatically assume such a world was worthless? In your "analysis," you make no reference to the fact that games will be more fair and consistent when random players do not swoop in to take turns, and if you disagree with that point of view, you never bothered to point out why. I respect your point of view and I understand where you're coming from. I'm just a slight bit perturbed about the amount of disdain some people approached this suggestion with, when the OP very clearly asked for a serious discussion. You can think the idea is crazy or awful but the OP believes in it and there's no call for making him feel bad about it.

I know you asked these questions to the OP but I'm going to answer this one anyway because it's obvious. Yes, it is fair. Everyone has to deal with the same problem -- if they don't have access to the internet at least once per day, they will miss turns. And in fact the status quo is fair too -- everyone is allowed to obtain a sitter. But fair doesn't mean equal. In reality it's much more difficult for someone who doesn't frequent tournaments or the forums to find a sitter. The world of the OP is both fair and equal. And a world of the OP plus a vacation system is not only fair and equal, it also alleviates much of the missed turn problem. So why don't we discuss it?

Let's be clear here everyone -- an injustice does not exist simply because you committed to do something in real life that interferes with your internet life. This is not about fairness. We all have things come up in RL -- you could go on vacation next week and lose a few games because of it (if you don't have a sitter), but you'll probably also win a few over the course of the year due to your opponents' RL commitments, and your opponents in your current games will also probably lose some of their games due to missed turns. It most likely all balances out in the end. What we really should have been arguing about was whether the quality decrease of games due to those missed turns is more or less extensive than the quality decrease of games due to unknown players coming in and taking turns for your opponents with completely different strategies. I think most people asserted that missed turns are more damaging, but I would go so far as to say that many of them did not actually stop and really think about this before posting, and that's a shame because it's what the OP asked for. But no matter. I think the vacation system solves those problems. Maybe I'll create a thread if no one wants to discuss it here.

A vacation system was not suggested, but here's your discussion.
1. How does this work for freemiums? Do they have to keep only 3 active games while the vacation is going on, or does everyone else in the game need to wait when the vacation is finished for a freemium to have an open slot again?
2. Would the vacation system delay long-running tournaments, or would the player be removed from long-running tournaments? Are either of these options good for the site?
3. Wouldn't entire clan wars be tainted by this rule? Using TOFU/BOFM as an example, since that's what I've been following recently, one of two things would've happened: Either CoF would've been unable to join the second batch of games, as he had a vacation planned for a few weeks after the batch started, or he would've deadbeated in both of the deciding games of that clan war. Either TOFU is without one of their best players, or they lose the two key games in that battle. A vacation system would allow them to put it off... but this war is already delaying CC2, as all of the other clans moved on to the quarterfinals.
4. Does a person who doesn't frequent tournaments/clan games really need a sitter as badly? It's much easier to whittle your game count down near 0 for a planned vacation when you don't have tournament invites coming to you regularly.

You seem to think the inequity that comes from playing a turn with a different strategy is greater than the inequity that comes from not playing a turn at all. This may be true for turns near the end of multiplayer escalating games, but that's the only thing I can think of. In a team game, generally a teammate will sit, which means the strategy is similar. In a long flat or no spoils game, there's little change from round to round. In a 1v1 game, you'll have some differences, but not as large as just missing turns, which nearly always swings the game directly to the other person.

I understand you're trying to tell me that this would all even out in the long run. You even out the number of games you deadbeat with the games your opponents deadbeat. But how are either of these fun? Wouldn't you prefer to play the game than not play it?

dowian2 wrote:A vacation system was not suggested, but here's your discussion.

I only brought it up a page or two ago -- thanks for the comments.

1. How does this work for freemiums? Do they have to keep only 3 active games while the vacation is going on, or does everyone else in the game need to wait when the vacation is finished for a freemium to have an open slot again?

I've thought about this and I think that if we were to implement a vacation system, we should also increase the game limit for freemiums. It is very likely that one or two of their active games could get delayed by a vacation for a week or even two, and that might devastate their chances of sticking with the site and eventually upgrading if they can only play 4 games at a time. On the other hand, this suggestion benefits freemiums the most in terms of gameplay, since statistically they're going to be the ones who don't have sitters.

2. Would the vacation system delay long-running tournaments, or would the player be removed from long-running tournaments? Are either of these options good for the site?

As the tournament system stands, yes it would delay long-running tournaments. If we were to implement this system, it would be my recommendation to TOs to devise a metric for calling a winner of delayed games for the purpose of tournament advancement, if they feel that a game is going to be delayed so long that it affects the quality of the tournament to wait for it.

By the way, tournament games are where this is qualitatively most important. If someone gets that shiny medal for winning a tournament, shouldn't they be able to say that it was only due to their strategic efforts, and not any help they might have gotten from a friend?

3. Wouldn't entire clan wars be tainted by this rule? Using TOFU/BOFM as an example, since that's what I've been following recently, one of two things would've happened: Either CoF would've been unable to join the second batch of games, as he had a vacation planned for a few weeks after the batch started, or he would've deadbeated in both of the deciding games of that clan war. Either TOFU is without one of their best players, or they lose the two key games in that battle. A vacation system would allow them to put it off... but this war is already delaying CC2, as all of the other clans moved on to the quarterfinals.

Um... if CoF is going on a long vacation, why is he joining games in the first place? The fact that players are "entering" games with the intent of not actually playing during, say, 90% of the length of the match doesn't seem a little odd to you?

4. Does a person who doesn't frequent tournaments/clan games really need a sitter as badly? It's much easier to whittle your game count down near 0 for a planned vacation when you don't have tournament invites coming to you regularly.

Does a person who does frequent tournaments really need a sitter at all? What's so wrong about simply bowing out of a tournament if you know you can't complete it because of a planned vacation? Do you even really deserve the tournament medal if a substantial number of your turns were not taken by yourself? I recognize that this is a touchy subject and I don't want to offend anyone here. But I don't think it's fair to say that a tournament player takes the site or his games more seriously simply because he does play in those tournaments (and I know that you did not outright suggest this, but a lot of people in this thread did so I want to address it). I may only play, say, 5 games at a time but that also allows me to put more thought into the games that I do play. To me, missing those 5 games might be just as bad as missing 30 games to a tournament player. I contend that it is not the volume of games you're playing that matter, but the quality of each individual game that matters, and that quality necessarily drops to you when you can't focus as much time on each one.

You seem to think the inequity that comes from playing a turn with a different strategy is greater than the inequity that comes from not playing a turn at all. This may be true for turns near the end of multiplayer escalating games, but that's the only thing I can think of. In a team game, generally a teammate will sit, which means the strategy is similar. In a long flat or no spoils game, there's little change from round to round. In a 1v1 game, you'll have some differences, but not as large as just missing turns, which nearly always swings the game directly to the other person.

For me it's more about the feel of the game than the actual impact on the game state. As I articulated earlier in this thread, it ought to be a big part of the game to play your opponent and not just his dice, and account sitting damages this.

The OP tried to say, and I agree with him, that most people do not truly like account sitting. Does anyone really like the idea of someone else taking their turns for them? Wouldn't you rather have control over your own games in an ideal world? That's why I'm advocating the vacation system. Sure it's got a few kinks to work out, as you illustrated above, but if we can make it work and obviate those harms, I ask you: why shouldn't we? Please do respond to my comments to your first three questions above -- I want to get as much feedback as I can before creating the thread.

Metsfanmax wrote:On the other hand, this suggestion benefits freemiums the most in terms of gameplay, since statistically they're going to be the ones who don't have sitters.

So we should outlaw an integral part of the site simply so people who don't pay money to support the site can get something better? Yep, that's a great way to run the site.

Metsfanmax wrote:By the way, tournament games are where this is qualitatively most important. If someone gets that shiny medal for winning a tournament, shouldn't they be able to say that it was only due to their strategic efforts, and not any help they might have gotten from a friend?

But it's ok to earn that shiny medal simply because your opponent went on a vacation and deadbeated the games? Don't worry though! The winner still won on their own strategic efforts.

Metsfanmax wrote:

4. Does a person who doesn't frequent tournaments/clan games really need a sitter as badly? It's much easier to whittle your game count down near 0 for a planned vacation when you don't have tournament invites coming to you regularly.

Does a person who does frequent tournaments really need a sitter at all? What's so wrong about simply bowing out of a tournament if you know you can't complete it because of a planned vacation? Do you even really deserve the tournament medal if a substantial number of your turns were not taken by yourself? I recognize that this is a touchy subject and I don't want to offend anyone here. But I don't think it's fair to say that a tournament player takes the site or his games more seriously simply because he does play in those tournaments (and I know that you did not outright suggest this, but a lot of people in this thread did so I want to address it). I may only play, say, 5 games at a time but that also allows me to put more thought into the games that I do play. To me, missing those 5 games might be just as bad as missing 30 games to a tournament player. I contend that it is not the volume of games you're playing that matter, but the quality of each individual game that matters, and that quality necessarily drops to you when you can't focus as much time on each one.

It doesn't matter what you contend. Facts are is that if you outlaw account sitting, you will absolutely kill the CC Tournament environment. And I for one can't allow that in my position as Head TD. You will randomly stall games/rounds simply because a person has a vacation. You will increase the problem of players going missing halfway through a round robin. You will throw tournaments into such a disarray that organizers will stop putting in the effort to run tournaments and simply walk away. The only tournaments you would allow would be speed tournaments as no one could guarantee that they would be able to play even the simplest bracket tournament over the course of the next month. And almost everyone contends that when players miss turns, it makes the games less enjoyable as they take longer and it also throws in unwanted lopsidedness through someone missing and then randomly showing back up to collect deferred troops. But then if a person misses 3 in a row, they either leave neutrals scattered everywhere or give all their troops to their teammate, both of which drastically change the nature of the game. Yet you think those actions are also indicative of a person's rank as well as makes a tournament win more credible? You are naive.

Metsfanmax wrote:For me it's more about the feel of the game than the actual impact on the game state. As I articulated earlier in this thread, it ought to be a big part of the game to play your opponent and not just his dice, and account sitting damages this.

If you want to feel the game, go play a table-top version of it where you know the player will be there for the entire game. You will destroy the feel for THIS game if you outlaw account sitting because of the disarray you will throw into every game. And that will hurt the enjoyment of the site for everybody

Metsfanmax wrote:The OP tried to say, and I agree with him, that most people do not truly like account sitting. Does anyone really like the idea of someone else taking their turns for them? Wouldn't you rather have control over your own games in an ideal world? That's why I'm advocating the vacation system. Sure it's got a few kinks to work out, as you illustrated above, but if we can make it work and obviate those harms, I ask you: why shouldn't we? Please do respond to my comments to your first three questions above -- I want to get as much feedback as I can before creating the thread.

Yes, I would like to be able to take my own turn every time it comes up, but what you're supporting isn't even close to an "ideal world". The ideal world is allowing games to continue smoothly, not to drag it out through missed turns and throwing it into disarray through deadbeats. Your idea creates the latter, not the ideal.

jefjef wrote:This thread needs to die. The horse is dead.

It's everyone on the site vs. 2 people now? But one of those people is a Suggestions Moderator, so this thread appears to be immortal.

Night Strike wrote:So we should outlaw an integral part of the site simply so people who don't pay money to support the site can get something better? Yep, that's a great way to run the site.

It is not an integral part of the site. The posters in this thread have done a great job attempting to pull the wool over our eyes in convincing us that everything will become awful without account sitting, but the fact of the matter is that most people do not have account sitters.

And yes, the whole point of the site is to convince unpaid players to start playing. Showing them that they're an important part of the community once in a while not only strengthens the community but also, in my mind, helps out Lack's business.

But it's ok to earn that shiny medal simply because your opponent went on a vacation and deadbeated the games? Don't worry though! The winner still won on their own strategic efforts.

I stated quite clearly in my post that I advocate a vacation system where people would only deadbeat in very extreme circumstances.

It doesn't matter what you contend. Facts are is that if you outlaw account sitting, you will absolutely kill the CC Tournament environment. And I for one can't allow that in my position as Head TD.

This is not your site. This is everyone's site. In the end, the decision that will be made will be the best decision for the community at large.

You will randomly stall games/rounds simply because a person has a vacation. You will increase the problem of players going missing halfway through a round robin. You will throw tournaments into such a disarray that organizers will stop putting in the effort to run tournaments and simply walk away.

I really doubt that. If a TO will give up on his tournament because his round lasted a week or two longer than he expected, he wasn't really committed in the first place.

The only tournaments you would allow would be speed tournaments as no one could guarantee that they would be able to play even the simplest bracket tournament over the course of the next month. And almost everyone contends that when players miss turns, it makes the games less enjoyable as they take longer and it also throws in unwanted lopsidedness through someone missing and then randomly showing back up to collect deferred troops. But then if a person misses 3 in a row, they either leave neutrals scattered everywhere or give all their troops to their teammate, both of which drastically change the nature of the game. Yet you think those actions are also indicative of a person's rank as well as makes a tournament win more credible? You are naive.

We're talking about a system that will preclude most missed turns, I don't see why you keep on bringing this up.

If you want to feel the game, go play a table-top version of it where you know the player will be there for the entire game. You will destroy the feel for THIS game if you outlaw account sitting because of the disarray you will throw into every game. And that will hurt the enjoyment of the site for everybody

How do you know everyone will enjoy the site less if this is implemented? Did you take a poll? It sounds like you're speaking for Night Strike, head TD here, not the CC community at large.

Yes, I would like to be able to take my own turn every time it comes up, but what you're supporting isn't even close to an "ideal world". The ideal world is allowing games to continue smoothly, not to drag it out through missed turns and throwing it into disarray through deadbeats. Your idea creates the latter, not the ideal.

There are few to zero missed turns or deadbeats in my world. If you're going to respond again, please have the courtesy to respond to what I'm actually advocating and not whatever it is you're responding to now.

drunkmonkey wrote:
It's everyone on the site vs. 2 people now? But one of those people is a Suggestions Moderator, so this thread appears to be immortal.

I just did a quick scan of this thread, and I know it's not scientific, but I count 30 people who are opposed to this suggestion (most of whom posted before the vacation system was advocated). I count 10 people who were in support of this suggestion (most of whom also weren't talking about a vacation system). I don't think your statement is anything other than extreme hyperbole, drunkmonkey.

Metsfanmax wrote:the fact of the matter is that most people do not have account sitters.

That is an unmitigated falsehood and it pretty much renders your argument moot. You should have taken your own advice and absented the thread.

Y'know, of all the arguments in favor of this wrongheaded proposal, I think I like Changsha's "I'm good with fucking everyone on the site out of a useful bit of functionality so a few people I personally dislike are inconvenienced" argument the best. No dissembling, no cloaking himself in false piety, no hiding behind specious reasoning. At least you know exactly where he's coming from.

Incandenza wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:the fact of the matter is that most people do not have account sitters.

That is an unmitigated falsehood and it pretty much renders your argument moot. You should have taken your own advice and absented the thread.

Saying something is false does not make it so. I refer to you to the evidence presented earlier, which you ignored -- something like 5% of all CC users ever have posted on the forum. I think that's pretty good evidence that most CC users do not have sitters. Not the smoking gun, but I am presenting some sort of factual evidence for my point of view and you are just saying "nope." This is a disingenuous method of argumentation.

Y'know, of all the arguments in favor of this wrongheaded proposal, I think I like Changsha's "I'm good with fucking everyone on the site out of a useful bit of functionality so a few people I personally dislike are inconvenienced" argument the best. No dissembling, no cloaking himself in false piety, no hiding behind specious reasoning. At least you know exactly where he's coming from.

I have posted thousands of words in this thread. Is it not clear exactly where I'm coming from? Would you like me to clarify my position further?

There are few to zero missed turns or deadbeats in my world.

I bet that is due to some sitting... It's good you get to enjoy smooth - continious games where turns are taken and the game is progressed...

BTW Have you ever considered the ramifications for the freemium account holders? Slow games to a crawl and

1: They will NOT much enjoy the site and likely never go premium.

2: The hunters who volunteer their time will have many more multiple accounts to deal with because the free accounts will want more games because theirs are crawling along or stuck in vacation la la land.

jefjef wrote:

There are few to zero missed turns or deadbeats in my world.

I bet that is due to some sitting... It's good you get to enjoy smooth - continious games where turns are taken and the game is progressed...

I deliberately proposed a vacation system with account sitting banned. I could consider a vacation system with an account sitting backup, but that's something to be discussed in another thread.

BTW Have you ever considered the ramifications for the freemium account holders? Slow games to a crawl and

1: They will NOT much enjoy the site and likely never go premium.

2: The hunters who volunteer their time will have many more multiple accounts to deal with because the free accounts will want more games because theirs are crawling along or stuck in vacation la la land.

Naturally I considered the ramifications for freemiums. I even discussed what I would propose to change, to accommodate them. You should read my posts to find out what it is

Alright peep's and peepette's, This seems to be a lot of back and forth between the same amount of people over the last couple pages. Maybe we should settle down for a bit, and see if we can get a few more responses from people who haven't posted. If nobody does, be my guest, and keep up the conversation.

Metsfanmax wrote:I'm not going to drag this debate out again -- I stand by everything I've said so far. Let's leave it at that.

If only that were true. Yet it seems to me, that is exactly what you are doing.

Metsfanmax wrote: In reality it's much more difficult for someone who doesn't frequent tournaments or the forums to find a sitter. ... So why don't we discuss it?

False. Frequenting tournaments or forums are not the only way to get a sitter. It has been discussed before, If a sitter is wanted by someone, then with a little effort they can find one. Quit reposting this. Finding a sitter is not the topic here, nor is it support in any way towards the OP or your suggestion.

Metsfanmax wrote:It most likely all balances out in the end.

Yes, because you have tested all possible outcomes and statistical possibilities and in your infinite foresight have posted these for our convenience here? No? Oh, that is just what you think? So, in the end, that was just a useless statement? I am saying that you have a habit of presenting your thoughts and opinions as facts......just saying.....

Metsfanmax wrote: What we really should have been arguing about was whether the quality decrease of games due to those missed turns is more or less extensive than the quality decrease of games due to unknown players coming in and taking turns for your opponents with completely different strategies.

Hmmmm....yeah, those 3 turns he sat for me against you in that game we played were the deciding turns....Get over it. I had somewhere to be. You didn't. Suck it up. I would have gotten you anyways.

Metsfanmax wrote:I think most people asserted that missed turns are more damaging, but I would go so far as to say that many of them did not actually stop and really think about this before posting, and that's a shame because it's what the OP asked for.

Well, quit going so far. You assume a lot just because a poster disagrees with your assertion. You go really far, to insult others posts because you want to sound enlightened. I believe that everyone put some thought into these posts that they took the time to enter here. Please do not make this mistake again, you have done this before.

Metsfanmax wrote: But no matter. I think the vacation system solves those problems. Maybe I'll create a thread if no one wants to discuss it here.

Please do. I have asked for you to do this before. These two suggestions are not the same thing, and therefore should be discussed in different threads. I think that this system, should it somehow make it through this suggestion stage and pass testing and the like, will open the door to talks of this suggestion. First things first, yeah?

Metsfanmax wrote:

dowian2 wrote:A vacation system was not suggested, but here's your discussion.

I only brought it up a page or two ago -- thanks for the comments.

Yeah, about that, It was brought up multiple time before you jumped on the bandwagon, but either way, this is another reason for the separate thread. Less confusion of the topic. This is for 'Outlawing Account Sitting'. Any discussion of a separate topic here will doubtless be mixed with the other topic, and another round of rehashing already made points.

4. Does a person who doesn't frequent tournaments/clan games really need a sitter as badly? It's much easier to whittle your game count down near 0 for a planned vacation when you don't have tournament invites coming to you regularly.

Metsfanmax wrote:Does a person who does frequent tournaments really need a sitter at all? What's so wrong about simply bowing out of a tournament if you know you can't complete it because of a planned vacation? Do you even really deserve the tournament medal if a substantial number of your turns were not taken by yourself?

Because I don't want to. Any other questions? I won my first 4 rounds of the tourney with 2 rounds to go. If someone sits a few turns for me, because I had something to do, I beat you and then go on to win the tourney, I have absolutely NO issue with that whatsoever. It is my tourney win, I put the work in, and if you are irritable because my sitter took a couple of turns of a game that you happen to have with me in that tourney, so be it. You will live to get another shot at me. I have no issues facing anyone who thinks I am less than my sitter.
Now here is the kicker, you keep using the word 'substantial' quite often. Most cases of sitting do not fall in this category. So, if you have an issue with 'substantial' sitting, then you would need to bring it up accordingly.

Metsfanmax wrote:The OP tried to say, and I agree with him, that most people do not truly like account sitting.

Another ASSumption. Hmmm.... There are a lot of those spread out through your prose. I do not believe that you or the OP, make up most people.....see later post...

Metsfanmax wrote:How do you know everyone will ... Did you take a poll?

...yeah, that one...lol

Metsfanmax wrote:That's why I'm advocating the vacation system. Sure it's got a few kinks to work out, as you illustrated above, but if we can make it work and obviate those harms,

Yeah, I think you should advocate the vacation system......in its own thread. It has a lot of kinks to work through in relation to this site and its applications. But you cannot use it to push the OP before it has been approved and tested. At its current stage, it is a theory at best. When the vacation system is in place on CC then perhaps you can come back to this thread and continue your thoughts.....

Metsfanmax wrote:

Night Strike wrote:So we should outlaw an integral part of the site simply so people who don't pay money to support the site can get something better? Yep, that's a great way to run the site.

It is not an integral part of the site. The posters in this thread have done a great job attempting to pull the wool over our eyes in convincing us that everything will become awful without account sitting, but the fact of the matter is that most people do not have account sitters.

Is this a bait and switch? Is your logic linear? You have NO facts, I do believe that this is the fact of the matter. You do not have a single number to base this on. You would have to ask every player individually and compile those numbers to have a proper figure. I know you haven't done that. And then, I would only consider premiums as countable. You may be right or you may be wrong, but don't keep trying to post your thoughts as facts, and that not even properly addressing your selected quote.
BTW, nice job in using 'pull the wool over our eyes' to wholly try to discount all of the dissenting opinions.

But it's ok to earn that shiny medal simply because your opponent went on a vacation and deadbeated the games? Don't worry though! The winner still won on their own strategic efforts.

Metsfanmax wrote:I stated quite clearly in my post that I advocate a vacation system where people would only deadbeat in very extreme circumstances.

LOLOLOL
so what, advocate it. It does not exist yet. So go make it happen. Until then .....

The only tournaments you would allow would be speed tournaments as no one could guarantee that they would be able to play even the simplest bracket tournament over the course of the next month. And almost everyone contends that when players miss turns, it makes the games less enjoyable as they take longer and it also throws in unwanted lopsidedness through someone missing and then randomly showing back up to collect deferred troops. But then if a person misses 3 in a row, they either leave neutrals scattered everywhere or give all their troops to their teammate, both of which drastically change the nature of the game. Yet you think those actions are also indicative of a person's rank as well as makes a tournament win more credible? You are naive.

Metsfanmax wrote:We're talking about a system that will preclude most missed turns, I don't see why you keep on bringing this up.

It keeps coming up for two reasons. I will make it easy for you....
1. Said system doesn't exist yet.
2. This thread is for Account Sitting so associated posts will probably refer back to it as you seem to try to blend them before either exists yet.

Metsfanmax wrote:How do you know everyone will enjoy the site less if this is implemented? Did you take a poll? It sounds like you're speaking for Night Strike, head TD here, not the CC community at large.

How do you know everyone will enjoy the site more if this is implemented? Did you take a poll? It sounds like you're speaking for yourself , not the CC community at large.

Metsfanmax wrote:Saying something is false does not make it so. I refer to you to the evidence presented earlier, which you ignored -- something like 5% of all CC users ever have posted on the forum. I think that's pretty good evidence that most CC users do not have sitters. Not the smoking gun, but I am presenting some sort of factual evidence for my point of view and you are just saying "nope." This is a disingenuous method of argumentation.

Saying something is true does not make it so. I refer you to the lack of evidence presented earlier, which no one could find. ..some made up stat... I think that's pretty bad evidence that most CC users do not have sitters.

Yeah, I don't know if you have the right definitions for factual or evidence. Talk of disingenuous argumentation...lol
once again, you pop out a number with no actual data. How can that prove anything? And say you had an actual number, what does forum posting have to do with having a sitter? Not much....soooooooooo,..,,,

Metsfanmax wrote:I have posted thousands of words in this thread. Is it not clear exactly where I'm coming from? Would you like me to clarify my position further?

NOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

No one respond to that.....

lol, no need to repeat the oft repeated so called reasoning that takes up your thousands of words. Obviously we get your opinion, and you REALLY mean it, however, we are baffled at your assumptions of fact...but no , please don't.........Please

Metsfanmax wrote:I deliberately proposed a vacation system with account sitting banned. I could consider a vacation system with an account sitting backup, but that's something to be discussed in another thread.

You are supporting a suggestion with a suggestion, offering consideration of another suggestion added on.....
...

Metsfanmax wrote:You should read my posts to find out what it is

That might take days.......




Don't take any of this personally Mets, but I must check you on your presentation. You have a lot of assumptions, opinions, disregard of others opinions, and things presented as facts that in fact are not facts. I am not trying to discourage your attempt to support your cause, but would appreciate the lack of repetition. Bring more support, and do not 'pull the wool over our eyes'. I think we can agree that your numbers are made up. Don't support one suggestion with the other. They will never bear fruit that way. I would suggest for you to put your full efforts into the vacation system and see if you can get that through first as that will most likely be a prerequisite to this suggestion being considered. Once the system has been tested and the community feels at ease with it , then perhaps most of these opposing opinions will not bar your way.



To close, I would like to quote Lord Voldemort..

lord voldemort wrote:

jghost7 wrote:Don't support one suggestion with the other. They will never bear fruit that way. I would suggest for you to put your full efforts into the vacation system and see if you can get that through first as that will most likely be a prerequisite to this suggestion being considered. Once the system has been tested and the community feels at ease with it , then perhaps most of these opposing opinions will not bar your way.

Per TFO's suggestion (and your own request, incidentally), I am going to let other people share their thoughts and not continue to post right now, but I do want to respond to this point in particular because it informs much of the rest of your post and it is incorrect. I believe that a vacation system requires account sitting to be banned as a corequisite, contrary to what you have said here. So the two do go hand in hand in my mind, and that was my motivation for bringing it up here.

Metsfanmax wrote:

jghost7 wrote:Don't support one suggestion with the other. They will never bear fruit that way. I would suggest for you to put your full efforts into the vacation system and see if you can get that through first as that will most likely be a prerequisite to this suggestion being considered. Once the system has been tested and the community feels at ease with it , then perhaps most of these opposing opinions will not bar your way.

Per TFO's suggestion (and your own request, incidentally), I am going to let other people share their thoughts and not continue to post right now, but I do want to respond to this point in particular because it informs much of the rest of your post and it is incorrect. I believe that a vacation system requires account sitting to be banned as a corequisite, contrary to what you have said here. So the two do go hand in hand in my mind, and that was my motivation for bringing it up here.

Not incorrect, just a matter of differing opinions. Yes, the vacation system should it pass, would make way for this one, but don't mistake your opinion or belief as fact. I said 'most likely', and you said 'believe', these are far from fact makers. Yes, they can go hand in hand. The difference is that A system will be put in BEFORE Account sitting is banned thereby my use of prerequisite. As there is no current system, one will have to be put in. So, again, if you focus on the system, get that in place(because I am sure there will be a thorough testing phase for whatever system passes the process) then come back here. lol, so picky, over what? Quit nitpicking stuff that doesn't matter. You got the point. I presented to you my thoughts, which by the way, I do not believe to be 'incorrect'.

Yeah I asked you to move your suggestion to its own thread. However you decided not to and posted an additional 7 times. I did not post hoping you would oblige, but since you didn't I decided to respond since there was the gap, and I felt it was important enough. And yes, as long as you insist on making the assertion that everyone is wrong, and no one stops and thinks before they post, and put up your opinions as statements of fact, I will reply.

Ok guys, I think that this topic has kinda come off its hinges a little. Some of these posts have nothing to do with the thread and are just opinions of what someone said. The fact of the matter is that people are allowed to post possible modifications to your suggestion for your perusal. It's how the suggestions get improved before they get submitted. But you don't need to take that modification yourself, people are just trying to help find something that everyone can agree with. So all that to say, lets try and keep this about password sharing and account sitting.

You operate under too many false assumptions to put hem all here, but I will tackle 2 biggies

The scoring system is at best a relative measure of how well you are doing at the particular settings you play, versus the particular settings everyone else plays at that time. Since people don't play the same games or settings that means little about overall skill. Add in the big luck factor .. more important on some maps and settings than others, but always present and scoring means not much. It is a fun measure, but if you consider it a real measure of "worth" or even true skill, you are mistaken.

Those who get the highest ranks stick to particular settings, maps and some legal or illegal "tricks". (usually the very highest ranks don't use the illegal methods.. they get caught readily when they try).

Per the suggestion... A lot of games go on for months at a time. Expecting people to show up every day for months might work if you have no real life, but is too much of ANY game to ask of most people. So, we have this compromise. You can play and let someone else take over when you have to go.

Does it work perfectly? Of course not. Is it a major source of cheating? No, and further the steps you suggest would cause far more harm to this site than any reduction in cheating.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Per the suggestion... A lot of games go on for months at a time. Expecting people to show up every day for months might work if you have no real life, but is too much of ANY game to ask of most people. So, we have this compromise. You can play and let someone else take over when you have to go.

Does it work perfectly? Of course not. Is it a major source of cheating? No, and further the steps you suggest would cause far more harm to this site than any reduction in cheating.

I keep reading life happens or to quote you "Expecting people to show up every day for months might work if you have no real life." If something in life comes up that makes you miss a turn, so what life happens. Maybe the ones who actually have their lives under control don't miss many turns. According to my profile I have a 100% turns taken but I have a family, a business and a life. We have had emergency room visits and vacations also. Rather than belittle those who take their turns as not having a life address the ones who use the excuse I was drunk or I was waiting for input from my partner but he didn't show up so I let someone else take my turn.

When I join a game I feel I am making an agreement to play my turns not someone else. If you are going on vacation run your game count down than have a sitter. If you only have a couple of hours left to take your turn and your advisor or your team mate hasn't shown up either take your turn or miss your turn. Damn make a decision and play YOUR turn.

Evil Semp wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Per the suggestion... A lot of games go on for months at a time. Expecting people to show up every day for months might work if you have no real life, but is too much of ANY game to ask of most people. So, we have this compromise. You can play and let someone else take over when you have to go.

Does it work perfectly? Of course not. Is it a major source of cheating? No, and further the steps you suggest would cause far more harm to this site than any reduction in cheating.

I keep reading life happens or to quote you "Expecting people to show up every day for months might work if you have no real life." If something in life comes up that makes you miss a turn, so what life happens. Maybe the ones who actually have their lives under control don't miss many turns. According to my profile I have a 100% turns taken but I have a family, a business and a life. We have had emergency room visits and vacations also. Rather than belittle those who take their turns as not having a life address the ones who use the excuse I was drunk or I was waiting for input from my partner but he didn't show up so I let someone else take my turn.

You sound like the boss who fired his employee for calling in sick when his wife was in the emergency room delivering their baby.

I am glad you were not one of the people I played when, in my first few games, I had to miss turns because our house flooded (busted pipe) and we had to go stay in a hotel for several days with no internet.

This is a GAME, not a fire, not a wreck. In my house, those are what we call emergencies. This isn't even work.

and the contract I "agree to" is to ensure the game will go on, that I will get a "sitter" for the few times I cannot make it. It is not that I will miss my son's little league games, camping trips or anything else so I can take a couple of CC turns.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Evil Semp wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Per the suggestion... A lot of games go on for months at a time. Expecting people to show up every day for months might work if you have no real life, but is too much of ANY game to ask of most people. So, we have this compromise. You can play and let someone else take over when you have to go.

Does it work perfectly? Of course not. Is it a major source of cheating? No, and further the steps you suggest would cause far more harm to this site than any reduction in cheating.

I keep reading life happens or to quote you "Expecting people to show up every day for months might work if you have no real life." If something in life comes up that makes you miss a turn, so what life happens. Maybe the ones who actually have their lives under control don't miss many turns. According to my profile I have a 100% turns taken but I have a family, a business and a life. We have had emergency room visits and vacations also. Rather than belittle those who take their turns as not having a life address the ones who use the excuse I was drunk or I was waiting for input from my partner but he didn't show up so I let someone else take my turn.

You sound like the boss who fired his employee for calling in sick when his wife was in the emergency room delivering their baby.

I am glad you were not one of the people I played when, in my first few games, I had to miss turns because our house flooded (busted pipe) and we had to go stay in a hotel for several days with no internet.

That is what I am saying life does happen so missing a turn or a few turns for those reasons is more important that taking the turns. When I said I am tired of that excuse is when getting drunk is considered life.

PLAYER57832 wrote:This is a GAME, not a fire, not a wreck. In my house, those are what we call emergencies. This isn't even work.

Agreed. Why is it so important to not miss any turns?

PLAYER57832 wrote:and the contract I "agree to" is to ensure the game will go on, that I will get a "sitter" for the few times I cannot make it. It is not that I will miss my son's little league games, camping trips or anything else so I can take a couple of CC turns.

You sure do read a lot into things. Does your sons little league games last for 24 hours? No. Are your sons little league games more important that CC? Yes. So you miss a turn to go watch the game I don't see any problem with that.

I am tired of life happens as an excuse when someone plays a turn at 8PM has a sitter at Midnight but plays another turn at 2
am. Maybe the ones who don't have a life are the ones who expect every turn to be taken. I don't expect every turn to be take but then again that is probably because I don't have a life.

Evil Semp wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:This is a GAME, not a fire, not a wreck. In my house, those are what we call emergencies. This isn't even work.

Agreed. Why is it so important to not miss any turns?

Right now, I play mostly 1 vs 1, partly because I don't want to be tied down for months. However, when I did play long games, I hardly wanted to give up on a game I had spent 2 months playing because of some situation.

Evil Semp wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:and the contract I "agree to" is to ensure the game will go on, that I will get a "sitter" for the few times I cannot make it. It is not that I will miss my son's little league games, camping trips or anything else so I can take a couple of CC turns.

You sure do read a lot into things. Does your sons little league games last for 24 hours?

When you have to drive over 2 hours to the game, they can take quite a while.

Evil Semp wrote:I am tired of life happens as an excuse when someone plays a turn at 8PM has a sitter at Midnight but plays another turn at 2

In over 3 years of playing, I have to say I have never had that happen.


one thing I have found: I have not checked your games, but generally those who play freestyle are far more intense, more worried about stuff like missed turns and.. well, more likely to be the type who wants a multis or some such. Team play, too, can be a trap if you don't have a set team. Even particular maps can get dominated by "particular groups" as well. Maybe if you try a different game type for a time. Who knows, stay away for a while, then in a few months you may come back to find an entirely new group playing.