Account Sharing Discussion

[the liquidator]

That'll be too late for me--I'm finishing my last 2 non-stalemate games & saying adios. One less timewaster in my life.

[farm]

As earlier quoted:
"Players are allowed to account-sit for others as long as they are not opponents within the game. When sitting for a player, you need to post who you are and how long you will be sitting for the player so that other players in the game are aware of who they are actually playing.
Being on another player's account for ANY reasons other than taking turns when they are in danger of missing a turn is unacceptable".

Well said.

[Metsfanmax]

As earlier quoted:
"Players are allowed to account-sit for others as long as they are not opponents within the game. When sitting for a player, you need to post who you are and how long you will be sitting for the player so that other players in the game are aware of who they are actually playing.
Being on another player's account for ANY reasons other than taking turns when they are in danger of missing a turn is unacceptable".

Well said.

That is not someone's description of the rule, that is the rule. What we're discussing are interpretations of this rule.

[jghost7]

I don't see how the rule is difficult to interpret. I think the ruling could be considered as such though. I am not fully aware of all the specifics of the case. There are other pieces of info that were not shared with the community as well. This becomes an issue when one tries to use that ruling as precedence or as a rule. This was a case specific ruling.

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...

I think that this is the main part of the ruling that makes sense. I don't necessarily agree with the statements after the initial paragraph. They are not in line with the posted rules. If the rules need to be added to , then so be it. Personally, I think it would be a shame to do so as its current version is sufficient for normal gameplay. But if we are discussing sitting and sharing according to the current rules then most of your example points would be legit. I can understand the OP's request for clarity due to the contradictory nature of the content in the ruling.

...KA's opinion (from the verdict and the PMs we exchanged) was basically "if you're available to play a turn anywhere in the 24-hour span and you don't, you inevitably assume the responsibility for whatever catastrophes/RL problems that later arise and keep you from taking those turns yourself".

Extremely harsh and not user-friendly in my opinion.

I agree with Rodion here. That applied to situation 1 would make the sit illegal, if it were written in the rules. I wholeheartedly disagree with that. I know that I don't take every turn I have every time I log in to cc. There are varying reasons for this. Either way , I have time to take the turns later. Should something occur to prevent me from taking my turns in time then yes, I should be able to get a sitter for that. That is a poor decision. The current rules have no section requiring 24+ hours for use of sitter, nor should they.

As I said before, the biggest issue that needs to be ironed out is the use of sitters in the clan arena. I don't think that a site rule addition would be needed for this. I think that if the clan directors were to put their heads together and come up with a plan to clear up this issue, then they could apply it to clan challenges and clan leagues as a general rule to go beside their game count rule. Perhaps for example, only teammates within affected game could sit? Personally, I think the honor system would be preferable, using the site rules as is, but as everyone in the site now sees, some direction might be necessary. Good luck with that cla.

I truly hope that no drastic, site-wide measures have to be taken in response to this prior to whatever new gadget they are working on comes into effect. I also hope they do not plan to use that ruling to try to change the current rules. It will be unfortunate to have the fun of the whole site to be affected by this.

[GoranZ]

Game 9067909 What about a game like this? What is the point of having two of the players playing when they are being sat for a majority of the time. I am not picking on these two teams. Just trying to show that yes people have lives but why play a games when you can't make it or knowingly know you are going to be gone for a few days. I am not saying that this is abuse but over a period of time, lets say a few month, you repeatedly have someone sit for you then something must be done.

If someone received points because he was sited and he doesn't have the necessary skill to win he will lose the points over time. The game still has the mechanism for points correction.

BTW Overall players who are sited lose points in the games that they are sited.

tl; dr: You can never be too tired or too stressed to take your turn. You can be too tired or too stressed to take your turn and do it well. Tough shit. It's your turn. If it's a clan game, it's your turn in your game to which you were specifically assigned or in which you specifically asked to participate. Take your damn turn.

Fenrir you are agents account sitting? If you are then you don't have support from majority of the players.

The best we can do right now is come to an agreement about how the current rules should best be interpreted.

From what I read you are trying to interpret the rules according to your needs lol

I too wish that we had a better system for sitting

With special system for sitting every single situation that you mentioned will be achievable, and it will be according to the rules, so I presume you are agents account sitting as fenrir. If that is the case then you should change the topic of the thread accordingly.

[Master Fenrir]

tl; dr: You can never be too tired or too stressed to take your turn. You can be too tired or too stressed to take your turn and do it well. Tough shit. It's your turn. If it's a clan game, it's your turn in your game to which you were specifically assigned or in which you specifically asked to participate. Take your damn turn.

Fenrir you are agents account sitting? If you are then you don't have support from majority of the players.

I am not against account sitting. I just don't think that being too tired or stressed is a valid reason to have an account sitter.

[GoranZ]

Fenrir you are agents account sitting? If you are then you don't have support from majority of the players.

I am not against account sitting. I just don't think that being too tired or stressed is a valid reason to have an account sitter.

Current rules don't require for the sitter to provide explanation why he is sitting, simply because majority of the sitters don't know this information(they only know that the player that they sit is missing) and this wont change if additional feature for sitting is implemented. And as far as I know there is no game that require a reason why player is sited(do you know any?)

btw according to you how many players that are sited don't play because they are tired or stressed? I speculate(for fun) that they are less then 1%.

P.S. Usually people play games to get rid of the stress

[josko.ri]

Additional evidence about suspected account sitting abuse was added to this topic yesterday, first post edited:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=148339#p3240531

[BigBallinStalin]

As earlier quoted:
"Players are allowed to account-sit for others as long as they are not opponents within the game. When sitting for a player, you need to post who you are and how long you will be sitting for the player so that other players in the game are aware of who they are actually playing.
Being on another player's account for ANY reasons other than taking turns when they are in danger of missing a turn is unacceptable".

Well said.

That is not someone's description of the rule, that is the rule. What we're discussing are interpretations of this rule.

Why require something to be set in stone for your imagined scenarios?

If it looks cheeky enough, and after the questions are pressed, and explanations are given, then let experienced mods exercise their judgement.

CC doesn't require cumbersome laws on almost every single possible circumstance. Let the system flow like common law.

[BigBallinStalin]

tl; dr: You can never be too tired or too stressed to take your turn. You can be too tired or too stressed to take your turn and do it well. Tough shit. It's your turn. If it's a clan game, it's your turn in your game to which you were specifically assigned or in which you specifically asked to participate. Take your damn turn.

Fenrir you are agents account sitting? If you are then you don't have support from majority of the players.

I am not against account sitting. I just don't think that being too tired or stressed is a valid reason to have an account sitter.

Well, if that will be the future law, then people will just say that they didn't have enough time to take their turns.

On the other hand, if it looks like rubbish, and someone provided enough evidence of this pattern, then a punishment would serve to discourage that type of behavior.

[spiesr]

Situation 2: Same situation as Situation 1, except Player A is unable to contact Player B and warn him. Player B later notices that Player A has 30 minutes left in his turn and concludes that Player A is probably going to miss his turn. Is it legitimate for Player B to take the turn for Player A?

If he does his best to wait down the turn in hopes of Player A showing up and Player A does not show up, Yes.

This response raises further questions. Such as how long must Player B wait before taking the turn? And what if Player B is going to go off line at a set time, and then sees that Player A has turns that will expire some time afterward. Player B has no way of knowing if Player A will return to take these turns between when Player B goes offline and when they expire. Should Player B take these turns? If so what level of time between Player B having to go offline and the turns expiring is short enough that it would be acceptable to take these turns? 15min? 30min? 1 hour? 2 hour? 5?

[squishyg]

I read this discussion with great interest and certainly have opinions on the scenarios outlined. However, the main question on my mind after considering the thread for a day or so is: Isn't the main issue a pattern of account sitting abuse, not establishing carved in stone rules for one-time offenses?