Conquer Club

I dont see anything wrong with the current system, but why not implement it? There are those that for some reason dont want to give out their password, but still want their account sat. If you dont like the new system you dont have to use it, just give out you password anyway.

It would be good to bar allowing anyone sign on to your account. Transparent account sitting would help, because you could establish a rule preventing members from using others' accounts. I think it is a good idea.

I think many of the disagreements are based on different assumptions of how this would be implemented. I suspect that if one or more people could be listed as "permanent emergency sitters" it would take care of most of the objections. That way I could list a few people that I trust that would always have access to my games. That would be a great side option in addition to an "explicit account sitter" who becomes responsible for a person's games for some period of time. Here's how I think it could be implemented:
1) You designate a sitter on a per-game (with the ability to select more than one, or even all, games at once) basis. They get a 5th tab on their "My Games" screen that lists all games they are expected to sit for. They would remain responsible for the game(s) until you deactive them as sitters. I don't think games should be automatically dropped from their list either when you log in to the site or play in one or more of their games. I could see a situation where you go on vacation and mange to find internet access for a very brief time and decide to check in on your games or even play a turn or two in games that are ready for you. This should not require you to manually go in and reactivate every single sitter.
2) In addition, you should be able to designate emergency sitters. This would be a specific option you could enable for each of the people on your friends list. These people would not see a 5th tab on the "My Games" screen and would not have anything automatically listing all your games. However, when they display your profile, they would have access to a button labeled "Account Sit" or the like. When they click it, they would go to a screen listing all your games and would be able to play for you in any of those games. This would be fully logged and automatically noted in the game log so that the other players can see what is happening.

From what people are saying, it sounds like the assumption is that only a restricted form of the first option is likely to be implemented. If that is the case, then the current method of account sitting shouldn't be automatically disallowed. I think it should be left up to the players on an individual basis to decide whether they want to activate specific sitters for specific games or if they just want to stick with the current approach and give someone their passwords in case of emergencies.

Doc_Brown wrote:From what people are saying, it sounds like the assumption is that only a restricted form of the first option is likely to be implemented. If that is the case, then the current method of account sitting shouldn't be automatically disallowed. I think it should be left up to the players on an individual basis to decide whether they want to activate specific sitters for specific games or if they just want to stick with the current approach and give someone their passwords in case of emergencies.

The poll hinted at it being limited in that you won't get an emergency sitter you can leave always on as it asked if you would mind having to activate it.

A compromise would be a much fairer and probably well supported option, but alas alack it wasn't an option.

I'll say helll yeah under the next conditions:

a) Sitting periods can't last more than 5-7 consecutive days (why would you start games knowing you'll have to leave all internet source?).

b) An account cannot be sat more than 30-50 days a year.

c) In the main game window a proper icon should be placed with a link to the current sitter profile. Something like this:

fumandomuerte 4.8

Why couldn't you set permanent sitters? H2sy and owen have both sat for me before. Setting it for a certain time period doesn't make a lot of sense.

fumandomuerte wrote:I'll say helll yeah under the next conditions:

a) Sitting periods can't last more than 5-7 consecutive days (why would you start games knowing you'll have to leave all internet source?).

b) An account cannot be sat more than 30-50 days a year.

c) In the main game window a proper icon should be placed with a link to the current sitter profile. Something like this:

fumandomuerte 4.8

people travel over a week sometimes. Also there is no way to know how long a game will last. I have some no spoils games over a year long now. Using your method, I would have deadbeated out of likely 50 games by now.

Wow, there are some crazy ideas going on in here about how real life works.

Some people travel for a living. Some people get hit by cars and need to go to the hospital for a week or two. Some people die. Some people have the power go out. Some people have their internet crap out. Some people have a life. And life happens.

To work to avoid the most missed games the system would need to allow for permanent sitters of some sort. These sitters would need access to PM's to join tournament games as well.

phantomzero wrote:Wow, there are some crazy ideas going on in here about how real life works.

Some people travel for a living. Some people get hit by cars and need to go to the hospital for a week or two. Some people die. Some people have the power go out. Some people have their internet crap out. Some people have a life. And life happens.

To work to avoid the most missed games the system would need to allow for permanent sitters of some sort. These sitters would need access to PM's to join tournament games as well.

that is a;ready in place. It is called giving someone your password

jbrettlip wrote:

phantomzero wrote:Wow, there are some crazy ideas going on in here about how real life works.

Some people travel for a living. Some people get hit by cars and need to go to the hospital for a week or two. Some people die. Some people have the power go out. Some people have their internet crap out. Some people have a life. And life happens.

To work to avoid the most missed games the system would need to allow for permanent sitters of some sort. These sitters would need access to PM's to join tournament games as well.

that is a;ready in place. It is called giving someone your password

Good then leave it alone and don't mess with a good system.

In response to [player]phantomzero[/player]...
1. Some people travel for a living.
I'll give you that. But if you know that your work is taking you away every now and then, why would you join 5 tournaments that you are not going to play?

2. Some people get hit by cars and need to go to the hospital for a week or two.
If so, would you be worried for losing CC points and ranks while you are fighting against losing an arm or a leg in real life?

3. Some people die.
Do I have to make a comment here? If you are sitting somebody and dies, are you going to be in the mood to even play CC?

4. Some people have the power go out.
For 5-7 days? Crap, don't even want to imagine it.

5. Some people have their internet crap out.
Same as before. Oh, there are things called internet coffee shops.

6. Some people have a life. And life happens.
Curious, the word ambiguous came to my mind .

fumandomuerte wrote:In response to [player]phantomzero[/player]...
5. Some people have their internet crap out.
Same as before. Oh, there are things called internet coffee shops.

People use desktops... you cannot take one of those to a coffee shop.

In the Dallas area we got 10-12 inches of snow last thursday, in whch some people today still do not have power. In fact at the highest point 200,000 people lost it. Downed power lines were the main cause. The business I own was without power for 2 days after. 1 day we had to close early, 2nd day we got a power gen so we could run the basics.

In general when internet goes out for me, it is likely out for most of my neighbors as we all use the same internet (given it is high speed cable) The DSL users would be OK. I do not know anybody who uses DSL. Anyhow... Why try to fix what is not broken?

Bruceswar wrote:Why try to fix what is not broken?

Worth repeating. Hell, worth repeating again.

Bruceswar wrote:Why try to fix what is not broken?

Optimus Prime wrote:We've all wanted a built in account sitting feature in some form on this site for a long time. It would make life easier when we have a vacation to go on and those strange moments where life gets in the way and we have to scramble to find someone to watch our turns that are due up in a couple of hours because we aren't sure we'll be back in time.

I'm not here to discuss what should or should not be included in an account sitting feature as that has been done time and time again over in the Suggestions & Bug Reports forum. What I want to know is one thing. If we ever get a built in feature would you as a player find it inconvenient to have to "activate" a sitter in some fashion through a control panel and then "deactivate" the sitter when you return from your vacation or unexpected situation?

Feel free to discuss as you see fit, but I'm most interested in the poll I've included at the top of the thread, so please be sure to vote.

Alright. I've re-read prime's message. Maybe I misunderstood the original post. If I can choose a list of clan mates and other tourney partners to "activate" and leave them "on" while I'm around then fine. Sounds good. I can leave them "active" and that is that.

Am I understanding better? Ack. Maybe not. Any clarification prime?

E.

If it is an enhancement of what we have today (in that sitters are tracked as sitters with their own password or whatever, and not just given a password to treat the account as their own), but the flexibility of today's situation still exists, I'm for it.

Otherwise, thumbs down.

Looks like the people have voted.. yeah I know not a ton.. but those who did voted nearly 2-1 against this idea.. What now?

Mostly just information gathering. No specific timetable has been set on anything at this point. I appreciate the votes and comments.

Particularly for people in a clan; if you know you'll be away then it is easy to arrange a sitter already (clan forum/PM.) If you don't (cardiac arrest, arrested & detained, kittens, hypnosis, temporary sleep paralysis or memory loss etc.) then you also wouldnt be able to ... activate a sitter anyway.

ROCKET.

Optimus Prime wrote:Mostly just information gathering. No specific timetable has been set on anything at this point. I appreciate the votes and comments.

So a Translation is: I really do not want your opinion, rather I just wanted some info. You all have no say in weather this gets put in or not.


Seems like a fair translation to me, unless I am missing something.

5. Some people have their internet crap out.
Same as before. Oh, there are things called internet coffee shops.

Yes there are but for many people (me included) the nearest one is about an hour away. So I'd spend 2 hours traveling to play 3 turns. Back when I was premium and had 50 games at a time even then I'd only spend about half an hour on turns as it's unlikely it's your turn in all of them.

Optimus Prime wrote:Mostly just information gathering. No specific timetable has been set on anything at this point. I appreciate the votes and comments.

so you are seeing quite how unpopular it will be when you do eventually implement this.

Bruceswar wrote:

Optimus Prime wrote:Mostly just information gathering. No specific timetable has been set on anything at this point. I appreciate the votes and comments.

So a Translation is: I really do not want your opinion, rather I just wanted some info. You all have no say in weather this gets put in or not.


Seems like a fair translation to me, unless I am missing something.

i see Bruce realises the same reality

This question is but one component. This thread has indicated that the community's opinion is similar (if not identical) to most of us on Team CC. Thanks for the input.

Optimus Prime, I have a little criticism on the formulation of your question, because it is kind of rethorical.
By using a word like 'hassle', the answer a normal person would tend to is 'Yes'.

Also, whether or not it's a hassle is not the same as "Do you support this feature" which seems to me to be a way more to-the-point question. Already I saw some people connect the outcome of this biased poll to whether or not people support this feature, and that's because you failed to set an objective poll.

Of course it would take some clicks to set an account sitter, but that doesn't matter.
Setting an account sitter is not a matter of having to do it every day, you have a sitter for a longer period of time.
Either for a few weeks of holidays, or for a permanent sitter.

jpcloet wrote:This question is but one component. This thread has indicated that the community's opinion is similar (if not identical) to most of us on Team CC. Thanks for the input.

Well that's a relief to us all.