Account Sitting Abuse - josko.ri [warned]

[Bones2484]

They can not only verify that it exists, but that it existed well before the actions KORT is accused of in this thread.

As SirSebstar pointed out to Rodion in the thread he linked to me:

That particular explenation has been established in 2009

Surely you cannot be accused of being a cheater based on guidelines that are not even public?

This is not a guideline. It's a clarification of a guideline. The guidelines that are listed at the top of the forums or in the Rule Book cannot (and should not) list every possible violation that anyone would ever come up with to skirt the rules. That would be an impossible task for anyone to try to put together.

But if you want links to the specific guidelines then here you go:

http://www.conquerclub.com/eticket/index.php - Go to question number 17
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7785 - Do a search for "Account Sitting"

[barterer2002]

So I guess the real question is when is account sitting appropriate.

Lets start with the premise that as a site and business that CC recognizes that there will be times when players will be away for more than 24 hours at a time and will need to have an account sitter at some point.

that being the case I think we can all agree that someone who is away for X length of time should have a sitter. It keeps deadbeats from happening, it keeps games moving and it makes for a more enjoyable site.

Now, in general I'd contend that anyone who will be away for more than 24 hours should have the opportunity to have a sitter although I'd recognize that there are those who would opt for different times.

The question here though is a bit different. Personally I suspect that there are plenty of sitters who do exactly what josko is accused of but don't post that they're sitting and thus don't draw the ire of the opposition. That however is neither here nor there at the moment.

The question here then is when is it appropriate to sit for a player who is available to take their turn within the 24 hour period but for whatever reason does not. (And truthfully, for the most part whether that reason is strategy, drunkenness or exhaustion doesn't really matter either. They are, to my mind at least, all birds of a feather).

There are some who contend that it is never appropriate to do so and that doing it is cheating. Most players, I think, would let it go if it were an occasional thing but when it becomes more systematic it gets looked at.

Others clearly contend that its OK to take your teammate's turn any time they might miss as there is no tactical advantage. I would respectfully disagree. Part of the strategy of a team game is getting your discussions done within that 24 hour period so that the player who's turn it is can take their turn. I would also contend that there is certainly a tactical advantage to one player taking multiple turns. Obviously it will happen at times as its likely that when a player is gone for a week and is in a team game that their teammate will be covering for them but I'm contending that it shouldn't be done as a regular habit. To those who contend that there is no difference between Player A posting in the team chat what to do and actually doing it themselves I would say that they're wrong. Turns often are more fluid that simple instructions can be unless you want to go into a "if you take territory X with more than 10 armies left advance them and attack Territory Y, otherwise . . ." type of instruction. Finally, part of the team game is that you're playing against 2, 3 or 4 other individuals who are all capable of making their own errors and/or miscues regardless of how many instructions are out there. That's part of what a team is about and having the best player on the team take most of the turns defeats the purpose of that.

Let me be clear on this. I like most of the members of KORT that I've interacted with. I've never had issues with any of them and I don't think this is a witch hunt although I can see why they feel attacked. For my money, I disagree with the position that Rodion and josko appear to be taking that its OK to skip your turns in a game and allow your teammate to sit for you. It may be that CC comes back and says that its perfectly OK to do it as they've been doing but clearly some clarity is needed here as, from what I understand, this isn't the first time this issue has come up. At a minimum IMO, clarity is needed here as to whether this type of strategy is allowed within the confines of account sitting.

[SirSebstar]

At a minimum IMO, clarity is needed here as to whether this type of strategy is allowed within the confines of account sitting.

I guess we are going to find out by the time a verdict has reached.
At least bones thinks this should not be acceptable. I can see the rules explenation and see where that is comming from. it does look like josko might have gone overboard though...I do know clans are pretending to be different, and i basicly concur with that too. To me its a tough call, one i hope can be resolved by a clarification or exception and or software..

[karelpietertje]

I was just verifying that the bolded text was official, I'm not defending josko's case.

Bytheway, Night Strike, could you be a little less persistent in assuming that the rules actually have been broken? The verdict and even the defense have yet to come. I think everybody should try to be more neutral, but especially moderators.
It might still take weeks, and it kind of sucks for josko (and with him the rest of KORT) being assumed to be a cheater all that time.

[Night Strike]

Bytheway, Night Strike, could you be a little less persistent in assuming that the rules actually have been broken? The verdict and even the defense have yet to come. I think everybody should try to be more neutral, but especially moderators.
It might still take weeks, and it kind of sucks for josko (and with him the rest of KORT) being assumed to be a cheater all that time.

If I didn't think the rules had been broken, I wouldn't have assisted in writing the case that Bones put out in the first post. And since I don't moderate this forum nor am a Clan Director, I'm not acting as a moderator in this case and can post any opinion I want that is not breaking the forum guidelines. I do think the rules have been broken, so I have no reason to stay neutral.

[laughingcavalier]

I looked up what is posted in public.

You can [let another player take a turn for you in a game], with the stipulation that the account babysitter is not your opponent in any current game. It is common courtesy to announce in game chat that another player will take your turn(s) during your absence. Babysitters should only do what is necessary to take the turn(s) and should not interact with the community, start or join new games (except for ongoing tournaments). Furthermore, you should only take another player's turn if they are in danger of missing a turn, not for the purpose of gaining a tactical advantage.

Account-Sitting:

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, or posting to necessary Tournament or Clan related public forum topics, is not allowed. Abuse of this privilege can be considered account sharing and could result in a Bust for both accounts.

Did the OP post the clarification of this rule rather than the rule itself because he wasn't confident that the rule itself demonstrated clearly enough the case he was making? One of josko's (& friends, I guess it must be ban one, ban all) lines of defence could be that they had good reason to believe they were acting within the spirit and letter of the account sitting rules. If a reasonable person could be said to have understood the publicly available rules to allow the actions josko & co were taking, then it would be difficult to punish them for what they did. It's really clear what "joining a game" means: is it similarly clear that "gaining a tactical advantage" is what the OP says it is?

[Bones2484]

Did the OP post the clarification of this rule rather than the rule itself because he wasn't confident that the rule itself demonstrated clearly enough the case he was making?

Not at all. I would have posted this with or without the clarification I received but felt that the clarification was even more proof that this was illegal. Why post less when you can post more?

One of josko's (& friends, I guess it must be ban one, ban all) lines of defence could be that they had good reason to believe they were acting within the spirit and letter of the account sitting rules. If a reasonable person could be said to have understood the publicly available rules to allow the actions josko & co were taking, then it would be difficult to punish them for what they did. It's really clear what "joining a game" means: is it similarly clear that "gaining a tactical advantage" is what the OP says it is?

Ignorance is never a valid excuse as a defense. And I would argue that "gaining a tactical advantage" is sufficiently broad enough of verbiage to include the description in the OP. The mods can't list out every single example of what abuse really is. They'd never be able to come up with every way someone can break the system.

[basic_man2010_20]

I looked up what is posted in public.

You can [let another player take a turn for you in a game], with the stipulation that the account babysitter is not your opponent in any current game. It is common courtesy to announce in game chat that another player will take your turn(s) during your absence. Babysitters should only do what is necessary to take the turn(s) and should not interact with the community, start or join new games (except for ongoing tournaments). Furthermore, you should only take another player's turn if they are in danger of missing a turn, not for the purpose of gaining a tactical advantage.

okay so like i said earliear, in danger of missing a turn. SO what is defined as danger of missing a turn??? i would say last 20 mins would be danger of missing a turn maybe to the point 1 hour max. now most of them is withing the last 20 mins but i saw at least 3 that was 5 hours left and that is NOT IN DANGER OF MISSING THE TURN.

now if they knew the person was away and took it that would be 1 thing

but taking it just because your going to sleep and your partner aint taken his turn as hes waiting for advice from you and theres 5 hours left dose not mean that there is a danger of missing the turn. thus he abused it at least 3 times.

[laughingcavalier]

One of josko's (& friends, I guess it must be ban one, ban all) lines of defence could be that they had good reason to believe they were acting within the spirit and letter of the account sitting rules. If a reasonable person could be said to have understood the publicly available rules to allow the actions josko & co were taking, then it would be difficult to punish them for what they did. It's really clear what "joining a game" means: is it similarly clear that "gaining a tactical advantage" is what the OP says it is?

Ignorance is never a valid excuse as a defense. And I would argue that "gaining a tactical advantage" is sufficiently broad enough of verbiage to include the description in the OP. The mods can't list out every single example of what abuse really is. They'd never be able to come up with every way someone can break the system.

You're right ignorance isn't an excuse, but I wasn't talking about ignorance I was talking about what a reasonable interpretation of the rule is.

From my personal reading of this thread, & in no way connected with my Team CC colour, it seems there is consensus that we don't want to see any more of the sort of account sitting these players did - and I hope the suggs forum is filling up with ways to make sure that happens. Out of this grey area we will get a clear definition of the right and wrong of account sitting.

To pass a guilty verdict the C&A team, I think, have to establish, that such a clear position already existed. That a reasonable person could have known josko & co were seeking a tactical advantage not just covering turns. Did that situation exist? It's really clear what "joining a game" means; is it similarly clear what "gaining a tactical advantage" is? This thread seems to suggest that different people in different clans have had different approaches to sitting, and some people are reviewing what they themselves have done in the past, and whether they should keep on doing it in future.

I really don't know if josko & co were perpetrating a gross abuse or just being sloppy about - or particularly honest about declaring - a practice many clan players are involved in (ie waiting for team comments & picking up on teammates last minute if necessary). If it's the latter, we may not like it, but if a vast mass of clan players have interpreted the rules as allowing it, and nobody's told them they can't, then it is a major step forward in the implementation of the rules to punish josko & co for it now.

[Night Strike]

To pass a guilty verdict the C&A team, I think, have to establish, that such a clear position already existed. That a reasonable person could have known josko & co were seeking a tactical advantage not just covering turns. Did that situation exist? It's really clear what "joining a game" means; is it similarly clear what "gaining a tactical advantage" is? This thread seems to suggest that different people in different clans have had different approaches to sitting, and some people are reviewing what they themselves have done in the past, and whether they should keep on doing it in future.

Some of the players involved have specifically stated that they did not take their own turns because they were waiting for someone to post a strategy on what to do for that turn. Since they did not take their own turn, the person who was giving the strategy took the turn for them. The FAQ state that turns cannot be taken to "gain a tactical advantage". I don't think it would take much time at all to realize that the actions taken by KORT are in violation of that rule. I think an outsider who saw the situation and that rule's wording side-by-side would immediately see that a tactical advantage was gained by the players and that the rule had indeed been broken. "Tactical advantage" and "discussing strategy" sound almost identical to me.

[hotfire]

i see that warfare is evolving in such a way that the general of the army is out on the frontlines dressed in a sergeants uniform discussing strategy, or perhaps picking up a pistol, with his corporals...instead of hiding in some tent with a map, a pencil and a radio...that shows real leadership...

the problem i see is that the corporals forget to fire their pistols when they are not sure of which enemys head to shoot at...thus making the general take the gun out of their hands and do it himself before the sun goes down

[Metsfanmax]

To pass a guilty verdict the C&A team, I think, have to establish, that such a clear position already existed. That a reasonable person could have known josko & co were seeking a tactical advantage not just covering turns. Did that situation exist? It's really clear what "joining a game" means; is it similarly clear what "gaining a tactical advantage" is? This thread seems to suggest that different people in different clans have had different approaches to sitting, and some people are reviewing what they themselves have done in the past, and whether they should keep on doing it in future.

Some of the players involved have specifically stated that they did not take their own turns because they were waiting for someone to post a strategy on what to do for that turn. Since they did not take their own turn, the person who was giving the strategy took the turn for them. The FAQ state that turns cannot be taken to "gain a tactical advantage". I don't think it would take much time at all to realize that the actions taken by KORT are in violation of that rule. I think an outsider who saw the situation and that rule's wording side-by-side would immediately see that a tactical advantage was gained by the players and that the rule had indeed been broken. "Tactical advantage" and "discussing strategy" sound almost identical to me.

This is pretty much the only thing that matters in this thread. The purpose of the account sitting allowance is to ensure that players who can't take turns, don't miss them. It is not to ensure that players who don't want to take their turns yet, don't miss them. There is currently a safety net which can be exploited for tactical advantage even if this wasn't the intent of anyone involved.

[Chariot of Fire]

i see that warfare is evolving in such a way that the general of the army is out on the frontlines dressed in a sergeants uniform discussing strategy, or perhaps picking up a pistol, with his corporals...instead of hiding in some tent with a map, a pencil and a radio...that shows real leadership...

the problem i see is that the corporals forget to fire their pistols when they are not sure of which enemys head to shoot at...thus making the general take the gun out of their hands and do it himself before the sun goes down

If ever a short story painted a picture, this was it. Bravo sir.

[Bones2484]

The purpose of the account sitting allowance is to ensure that players who can't take turns, don't miss them. It is not to ensure that players who don't want to take their turns yet, don't miss them.

This is excellently written.

Let me try to make this a bit more clear for Josko & Company since I know what they are trying to do in defense and no one wants to see any spurious revenge C&A posts.

Abuse
Taking a turn for someone who has chosen to not play their own turn and was able to. The timer could be at 24 hours or 5 minutes, and either way I'd argue it to be abuse.

Not Abuse
Taking a turn for someone who is away from the site on vacation at any point during the 24 hour time.

If I am covering someone's account who is out for the weekend, it would be impossible to only take turns for them when their timer is nearing expiration. You cannot expect someone to babysit an account every hour of the day. If Barterer2002, for example, tells me he will be gone from Friday to Monday I will likely check his turns twice a day (even if I am online for my account more often than that) and push turns back to a minimum of 12 hours. Sometimes, if I know I won't be able to check the account twice a day, I will push every turn back 24 hours and then check again the next day. This is not abuse.

Abuse during true Account Sitting would be joining games for him (non-tournament) while he is away, playing games for him in which I am an opponent, or making forum posts/sending PMs.

If you'd like to accuse anyone in G1 for doing what you are accused of, you will be disappointed in the results. We are able to provide forum posts and PMs when anyone in the clan is on vacation and requested their account to be covered. In G1 we all have private passwords that no one else in the clan knows and we only change the password (and supply to a few account sitters of our choosing) when we are leaving on vacation. No one is able to access someone else's account whenever we feel like it. The wall-message I left you last week when MrGlassB was low on time (which he eventually missed) and you informed me proves this. No one in G1 was able to take that turn and while the miss was unfortunate, at least we remained honorable.

[drunkmonkey]

Bones, no one has accused G1 of anything. No one has threatened to accuse G1 of anything. I know for a fact, there is nothing in the KORT forum even beginning to accuse G1 of anything. I know you think you've got it all figured out, but you don't. Will you please stop accusing josko/KORT of "trying to make spurious revenge reports"?

As a matter of fact, you've stated your case. I don't believe you've presented any new information since your first post. You can stop repeating yourself now.

[thebest712]

The purpose of the account sitting allowance is to ensure that players who can't take turns, don't miss them. It is not to ensure that players who don't want to take their turns yet, don't miss them.

This is excellently written.

Let me try to make this a bit more clear for Josko & Company since I know what they are trying to do in defense and no one wants to see any spurious revenge C&A posts.

Abuse
Taking a turn for someone who has chosen to not play their own turn and was able to. The timer could be at 24 hours or 5 minutes, and either way I'd argue it to be abuse.

Not Abuse
Taking a turn for someone who is away from the site on vacation at any point during the 24 hour time.

If I am covering someone's account who is out for the weekend, it would be impossible to only take turns for them when their timer is nearing expiration. You cannot expect someone to babysit an account every hour of the day. If Barterer2002, for example, tells me he will be gone from Friday to Monday I will likely check his turns twice a day (even if I am online for my account more often than that) and push turns back to a minimum of 12 hours. Sometimes, if I know I won't be able to check the account twice a day, I will push every turn back 24 hours and then check again the next day. This is not abuse.

Abuse during true Account Sitting would be joining games for him (non-tournament) while he is away, playing games for him in which I am an opponent, or making forum posts/sending PMs.

If you'd like to accuse anyone in G1 for doing what you are accused of, you will be disappointed in the results. We are able to provide forum posts and PMs when anyone in the clan is on vacation and requested their account to be covered. In G1 we all have private passwords that no one else in the clan knows and we only change the password (and supply to a few account sitters of our choosing) when we are leaving on vacation. No one is able to access someone else's account whenever we feel like it. The wall-message I left you last week when MrGlassB was low on time (which he eventually missed) and you informed me proves this. No one in G1 was able to take that turn and while the miss was unfortunate, at least we remained honorable.

so if you are for exemple a normal day 2 times online, you have allot turns 1st time you come online so only play some, maybe check forum and post a bit, your sure you can play your other turns cause you will come back, but somethings happens that you can't log in and then someone who notices sits.

this is abuse you guys say?

ok this is not really good english, sorry for that.

[Night Strike]

so if you are for exemple a normal day 2 times online, you have allot turns 1st time you come online so only play some, maybe check forum and post a bit, your sure you can play your other turns cause you will come back, but somethings happens that you can't log in and then someone who notices sits.

this is abuse you guys say?

ok this is not really good english, sorry for that.

I think the better question is why does someone else already have your password and know to take your turn if you haven't? In G1, we have private passwords unless someone has to go on a vacation (or knows they will be gone for 24+ hours), then they change their password to something else to have clan members watch their account. If a player is surprisingly gone for more than 24 hours and can't send a quick text to an account sitter, they just miss those turns. It's much better to miss a turn than to let people have continuous access to your account. No clan war or tournament is worth the potential of that abuse. If someone has 24/7 access to your account, that's a dangerous place to put yourself.

[ljex]

so if you are for exemple a normal day 2 times online, you have allot turns 1st time you come online so only play some, maybe check forum and post a bit, your sure you can play your other turns cause you will come back, but somethings happens that you can't log in and then someone who notices sits.

this is abuse you guys say?

ok this is not really good english, sorry for that.

I think the better question is why does someone else already have your password and know to take your turn if you haven't? In G1, we have private passwords unless someone has to go on a vacation (or knows they will be gone for 24+ hours), then they change their password to something else to have clan members watch their account. If a player is surprisingly gone for more than 24 hours and can't send a quick text to an account sitter, they just miss those turns. It's much better to miss a turn than to let people have continuous access to your account. No clan war or tournament is worth the potential of that abuse. If someone has 24/7 access to your account, that's a dangerous place to put yourself.

Im sorry but that is just not realistic for "Top Clans" and I say this meaning as little disrespect to G1 as possible but this is one of those differences that all top clans have while not all other clans have. There is always someone with your password...simply because its annoying to change it over and over again, I know what thats like i used to be a mod and there is use for having your clan mates password. In Empire we all have each others password because there is no reason not to. Emergencies do happen and one should be prepared for them. Just recently because of the site down time in the morning i could not take my turns before work and my sitters had to take them. If not for them having my password and knowing to take my turns if I'm a-wall i would have missed some very important turns. And yes it is worth the potential of that abuse...do you really not trust your clan mates not to abuse your account?

[Bones2484]

do you really not trust your clan mates not to abuse your account?

It has nothing to do with trust, but yes I do trust the people in G1. Granted, look what happened with Commander and some other cases... you can never know, especially when your "common" passwords gets out to people outside of the clan and then outsiders would have access to anyone's password in your clan. We used to have Lanyards in G1 (biggest mistake ever) and we all know who he ended up sharing passwords with. Thank goodness those idiots didn't take control of anyone else in G1.

Regardless, I'm of the opinion that my account is exactly that: my account. If I need to be away for an extended period of time then I'll ask friends to help me out, but otherwise it's on me to make sure my turns get taken.

On that note, and a bit off topic, but it's a shame there isn't a way to prevent users from giving advice on games they aren't in, or providing the only strategy for games they aren't in so that we can test the true skill of a clan instead of the skill of the top 2-3 people in it. You wouldn't see someone directing moves in games they aren't a part of in real Risk tournaments, would you? Back when I played tennis in high school the team would win or lose based on the performance of everyone: from the best player on the team down to the worst. The best wasn't able to make a few plays for the worst. We were a team and results were dependent on everyone's individual play, we had to trust that everyone was as best prepared as possible and live with the results... win or lose.

[laughingcavalier]

To pass a guilty verdict the C&A team, I think, have to establish, that such a clear position already existed. That a reasonable person could have known josko & co were seeking a tactical advantage not just covering turns. Did that situation exist? It's really clear what "joining a game" means; is it similarly clear what "gaining a tactical advantage" is? This thread seems to suggest that different people in different clans have had different approaches to sitting, and some people are reviewing what they themselves have done in the past, and whether they should keep on doing it in future.

Some of the players involved have specifically stated that they did not take their own turns because they were waiting for someone to post a strategy on what to do for that turn. Since they did not take their own turn, the person who was giving the strategy took the turn for them. The FAQ state that turns cannot be taken to "gain a tactical advantage". I don't think it would take much time at all to realize that the actions taken by KORT are in violation of that rule. I think an outsider who saw the situation and that rule's wording side-by-side would immediately see that a tactical advantage was gained by the players and that the rule had indeed been broken. "Tactical advantage" and "discussing strategy" sound almost identical to me.

Just no. As per the responses to Bones' post above, it is established practice on many teams and in many clans to discuss moves. Often this involves leaving a suggestion, waiting for a response and coming back when there's not much time left on the clock to play it. In the vast majority of high-pressure games I've played, over the critical turns they slow down to 24 hours per turn as this happens, then speed up at the end when the game is decided. Sometimes when this happens there is a danger that turns are missed. My belief is that most clans will at some time have covered a player in this situation because that player was in danger of missing a turn.
If you want to ban every player who has done this please ban me. I covered a turn last week for a teammate who had posted in chat asking for advice & forgot to come back & play it before he went to bed. Admittedly I got an embarrassed pm from him the next day when he realised and I can't remember when it last happened before that... but it does happen.
So, unless you want to test the rules with an awful lot of C&A reports, your case against josko & co is not as black and white as you claim. It depends on you establishing that they were doing too much of this, pushing the practice too far. Not that what they were doing was wholly different from what is habitually done by many teams and clans, but that their point on the continuum of behaviour was beyond an acceptable point and that the rules were clearly enough expressed for a reasonable person to know this.
Are the 20 turns over 12 months given in the OP enough evidence from all the games (100s?) josko has played in that time? If 20 is not enough how many would be? 21?
Why this matters to me is that josko (like blitz) has been very publicly hated for a very long time by a small number of forum posters. Those posters normalise a level of animosity toward josko which would be seen as really nasty bullying if it happened offline. Some players on here have had to put up with a lot of harassment which at times seems devoid of human compassion or ethical moderation.
In their response to this thread the C&A team will have to make law through precedent. Whichever way their decision goes they will have to clearly define what is and is not acceptable in this sort of account sitting, about which there is a lot of confusion as evidenced by the posts in this thread.
A vast amount of work that goes into producing the evidence for C&A reports like this. What motivates that work? Is it really appropriate that so much work goes into a C&A accusation rather than work on improved systems or guidelines for sitting? Is there a danger that the C&A forum is being used as a place to carry on a "feud", where that "feud" is in reality bullying? Are some C&A complainants looking for grey areas of the rules to catch out and punish players they have decided to victimise?
If so, then the C&A team have a duty to players who may be the subject of future victimisation - a duty to be very clear indeed as to whether existing guidelines outlawed josko & co's behaviour. A guilty verdict that extended the rules on account sitting rather than implementing the existing rules would be a green light to a different sort of bad behaviour that is quite as repugnant as account sitting abuse.

[ljex]

do you really not trust your clan mates not to abuse your account?

It has nothing to do with trust, but yes I do trust the people in G1. Granted, look what happened with Commander and some other cases... you can never know, especially when your "common" passwords gets out to people outside of the clan and then outsiders would have access to anyone's password in your clan. We used to have Lanyards in G1 (biggest mistake ever) and we all know who he ended up sharing passwords with. Thank goodness those idiots didn't take control of anyone else in G1.

Regardless, I'm of the opinion that my account is exactly that: my account. If I need to be away for an extended period of time then I'll ask friends to help me out, but otherwise it's on me to make sure my turns get taken.

On that note, and a bit off topic, but it's a shame there isn't a way to prevent users from giving advice on games they aren't in, or providing the only strategy for games they aren't in so that we can test the true skill of a clan instead of the skill of the top 2-3 people in it. You wouldn't see someone directing moves in games they aren't a part of in real Risk tournaments, would you? Back when I played tennis in high school the team would win or lose based on the performance of everyone: from the best player on the team down to the worst. The best wasn't able to make a few plays for the worst. We were a team and results were dependent on everyone's individual play, we had to trust that everyone was as best prepared as possible and live with the results... win or lose.

the commander thing is one case...so i wouldn't really associate that with a high rate of risk...

also there is no way to completely stop the ability for people not in games to control the strategy of those games. Though in my opinion there should be no game limit...if someone wants to play all 60 games of a challenge so be it but the rest of the clan world will know and its not like they can be the best player in their clan for all 60 maps and settings. Beyond that even before player limits or with them how often do you see one player in every game or play the maximum allowed by the player limit. To me its a pointless rule but this is a discussion for a different thread.

[barterer2002]

so if you are for exemple a normal day 2 times online, you have allot turns 1st time you come online so only play some, maybe check forum and post a bit, your sure you can play your other turns cause you will come back, but somethings happens that you can't log in and then someone who notices sits.

this is abuse you guys say?

ok this is not really good english, sorry for that.

I think the better question is why does someone else already have your password and know to take your turn if you haven't? In G1, we have private passwords unless someone has to go on a vacation (or knows they will be gone for 24+ hours), then they change their password to something else to have clan members watch their account. If a player is surprisingly gone for more than 24 hours and can't send a quick text to an account sitter, they just miss those turns. It's much better to miss a turn than to let people have continuous access to your account. No clan war or tournament is worth the potential of that abuse. If someone has 24/7 access to your account, that's a dangerous place to put yourself.

Im sorry but that is just not realistic for "Top Clans" and I say this meaning as little disrespect to G1 as possible but this is one of those differences that all top clans have while not all other clans have. There is always someone with your password...simply because its annoying to change it over and over again, I know what thats like i used to be a mod and there is use for having your clan mates password. In Empire we all have each others password because there is no reason not to. Emergencies do happen and one should be prepared for them. Just recently because of the site down time in the morning i could not take my turns before work and my sitters had to take them. If not for them having my password and knowing to take my turns if I'm a-wall i would have missed some very important turns. And yes it is worth the potential of that abuse...do you really not trust your clan mates not to abuse your account?

So what are you saying here l?

I see a couple of things that I'd like clarifying.

1). Are you saying that it is appropriate to wait in team games until the top strategist has weighed in and that if so waiting will cause a miss that the same top strategist should also take that turn?

2). Are you saying there is no difference between someone having your password for sitting purposes and allowing or even encouraging another player to take your turns instead of you, not because you had to go to work but because you hadn't received instructions in time.

3). As far as G1 not being a top clan. Well I can certainly say a lot there. Lets suffice it to say that we have different priorities. If you want to play a game let me know I'll play you on any map, any settings, singles, dubs, trips, quads. Pick your favorite and let me know and I'll be there and I'll have clan mates lining up because most of us will play anyone anywhere anytime and that's not something that can be said of most of the so called "top clans" With of course all "due respect" to the "top clans"

[ljex]

so if you are for exemple a normal day 2 times online, you have allot turns 1st time you come online so only play some, maybe check forum and post a bit, your sure you can play your other turns cause you will come back, but somethings happens that you can't log in and then someone who notices sits.

this is abuse you guys say?

ok this is not really good english, sorry for that.

I think the better question is why does someone else already have your password and know to take your turn if you haven't? In G1, we have private passwords unless someone has to go on a vacation (or knows they will be gone for 24+ hours), then they change their password to something else to have clan members watch their account. If a player is surprisingly gone for more than 24 hours and can't send a quick text to an account sitter, they just miss those turns. It's much better to miss a turn than to let people have continuous access to your account. No clan war or tournament is worth the potential of that abuse. If someone has 24/7 access to your account, that's a dangerous place to put yourself.

Im sorry but that is just not realistic for "Top Clans" and I say this meaning as little disrespect to G1 as possible but this is one of those differences that all top clans have while not all other clans have. There is always someone with your password...simply because its annoying to change it over and over again, I know what thats like i used to be a mod and there is use for having your clan mates password. In Empire we all have each others password because there is no reason not to. Emergencies do happen and one should be prepared for them. Just recently because of the site down time in the morning i could not take my turns before work and my sitters had to take them. If not for them having my password and knowing to take my turns if I'm a-wall i would have missed some very important turns. And yes it is worth the potential of that abuse...do you really not trust your clan mates not to abuse your account?

So what are you saying here l?

I see a couple of things that I'd like clarifying.

1). Are you saying that it is appropriate to wait in team games until the top strategist has weighed in and that if so waiting will cause a miss that the same top strategist should also take that turn?

2). Are you saying there is no difference between someone having your password for sitting purposes and allowing or even encouraging another player to take your turns instead of you, not because you had to go to work but because you hadn't received instructions in time.

3). As far as G1 not being a top clan. Well I can certainly say a lot there. Lets suffice it to say that we have different priorities. If you want to play a game let me know I'll play you on any map, any settings, singles, dubs, trips, quads. Pick your favorite and let me know and I'll be there and I'll have clan mates lining up because most of us will play anyone anywhere anytime and that's not something that can be said of most of the so called "top clans" With of course all "due respect" to the "top clans"

1) no im saying things come up...and its good to be prepared. I have never seen anyone in empire give any strategy on a clan war game they were not in

2) im saying it is a good thing for people to have your password in case of emergencies...and i think maybe one or two times ever i have had a turn sat for me that i would have got to if they had not sat the turn. Over all the games i have played that is a very small percentage of turns

3) i used to share the same belief...not anymore. I really dont care to much about what people think of me. I could easily get my clan mates to join a game over this if i wanted but whats the point really? Im sure i could find a map/setting combo that you would not want to join...but seriously top clans defend their own just like you say your clan does. You can look at my games to know that i play basically everything and there are a few more in my clan that are the same way. Same can be said for many other clans, and i actually view G1 as on the brink of being a top clan...i just dont think they are there yet.

Now that we have gone off topic enough ill stop commenting

[Night Strike]

Just no. As per the responses to Bones' post above, it is established practice on many teams and in many clans to discuss moves. Often this involves leaving a suggestion, waiting for a response and coming back when there's not much time left on the clock to play it. In the vast majority of high-pressure games I've played, over the critical turns they slow down to 24 hours per turn as this happens, then speed up at the end when the game is decided. Sometimes when this happens there is a danger that turns are missed. My belief is that most clans will at some time have covered a player in this situation because that player was in danger of missing a turn.

And the whole point of this thread is that Bones and the other members of G1 believe that these actions constitute abuse. You have 24 hours to take your own turn, not to wait for advice and make someone else take it if you can't show up.

Why this matters to me is that josko (like blitz) has been very publicly hated for a very long time by a small number of forum posters. Those posters normalise a level of animosity toward josko which would be seen as really nasty bullying if it happened offline. Some players on here have had to put up with a lot of harassment which at times seems devoid of human compassion or ethical moderation.

When has any member from G1 had a public (or even private) hatred of josko? Or even of any of the members of KORT? We saw suspicious behavior and chose to look into it with more scrutiny. Then we found out that some of those "public hatings" of KORT had to do with account sitting questions, so we thought that maybe there was more of a pattern to these actions than we had originally thought. It wasn't because we decided to go on a witch hunt.

A vast amount of work that goes into producing the evidence for C&A reports like this. What motivates that work? Is it really appropriate that so much work goes into a C&A accusation rather than work on improved systems or guidelines for sitting? Is there a danger that the C&A forum is being used as a place to carry on a "feud", where that "feud" is in reality bullying? Are some C&A complainants looking for grey areas of the rules to catch out and punish players they have decided to victimise?
If so, then the C&A team have a duty to players who may be the subject of future victimisation - a duty to be very clear indeed as to whether existing guidelines outlawed josko & co's behaviour. A guilty verdict that extended the rules on account sitting rather than implementing the existing rules would be a green light to a different sort of bad behaviour that is quite as repugnant as account sitting abuse.

As I mentioned above, there is no existing feud between members of G1 and members of KORT. And I think the work that went into this accusation is good for the site as it means members are looking out for the integrity of the gaming on this site. There are real issues here that need to be resolved, and the site will be better because of this. I believe there are a lot of potential abuses like this going on in the top clans due to their desire to win at all costs, so I believe any way to stop those potential abuses will be beneficial to the site.

[Funkyterrance]

I found this thread truly enlightening. Taking in all this information I can now see that the only way to truly gauge the skill of a clan would be for all clan challenges to consist of 1v1 fog games where no account sitting was allowed. Period. Any other variation would be open to corruption or at least not be an accurate reflection of how good a clan as a whole actually is.

From C0F's post, herein lies a problem:

I think at the time the TOFU-KORT investigation wasn't delved into very deeply as we had neither sought a reprimand nor provided evidence to support a claim - it was simply something we weren't intent on pursuing and damaging relationships over. It did bring to light the script that had been written which had been the cause of our antagonism and which had prompted us to file a discreet complaint (for which I believe KORT received a warning), but beyond that I don't believe a thorough investigation was made as the exposure of the script issue rather obfuscated the whole affair.

I have nothing against this upstanding player but damaging relationships with a clan that you are more than suspicious of breaking the rules? Wtf is that? Another possibility is that you don't want to dig so deeply into the subject so that the mirror is now facing in the wrong direction. Precisely I mean that the main problem with the issue is that no one is actually completely innocent of the original accusation. Telling a player EXACTLY what to do with their turn or severely dominating other clan members' gameplay is more or less the same as logging into their account and playing for them. How many can say they never do this in a clan game? If you can't then your clan's record is basically meaningless, whatever the current written rules may be. Any other angle is way too slippery of a slope to even consider.