josko.ri & Moonchild [Noted] DCR

[Nicky15]

Hello there everyone. The CDs have been addressing all of these issues over the past few months (not just this one) and until we get a sitting feature, we will have to rely on a new set of rules that we are in the process of finalizing. We will post them over the next few days.

[Chewie1]

C'mon, lets be real here. This whole account sitting issue is getting way out of hand! I don't even have anymore interest in playing in clan games..I mean this is ridiculous. You don't know who you are playing against, its like 1 guy is taking every single fucking turn..

Why not just ban account sitting all together? You can't make it here in a 24 hour period, then you miss your turn it's as simple as that. You don't have internet on the weekends, then go find an internet cafe, or some shit.. I mean, what a joke the clan scene has become with this stupid account sitting. Its ridiculous!

And come on, how hard is it to lie to have your best player take your turn because it is a vital one? Hey guys, I cant play on Wednesday, Thursdays or Sundays. So i need someone to sit my account for those days, k? thanks!

you get the point?? You either take the turn in 24 hours or you dont! get rid of this overusused, abused system that is called "account sitting"

Dont be an ass.. account sitting is great if used correctly why should the minority spoil it for the majority.

[eddie2]

As for sitting, like we said, as long as it is announced and made clear that this would happen, and the sitter didn't break any of the Account Sitting rules (Forum Posting, joining/starting new games, playing as an opponent of the person you are sitting for) then this would be ok.

I think think dcr you are getting muddled up with the sitting rules for clan games, when masli was head clan mod he put a vote within the cla, this rule was to clarify what sitting rules clans were going to follow with the following 2 options..

1) follow site rules as quoted above..

2) follow tournament rules

the final result was to follow tournament rules... but there was no modification to these rules because it was around the time masli stood down as moderator.

So the problem i see is that in tournaments it is ok to sign a player up to games and play all his shots in them games to stop the delaying of any rounds matchs... in other words when a player posts in there challenge thread in private forums that they are going to take part in it then they are allowed to have a sitter sign up and play a full match for them if they are away and carry on indefinite until the war is over . also like in this case if they are not present at weekends then this is ok....

I do really hope that after another sitting case involving clan areas that clan mods with or without the help of the cla (this part meaning if they want input from clan leaders.) all start a thread and discuss a proper set of rules for sitting in clan challenges and post a public thread in the clan pages saying what is and what is not allowed.. this will stop any confusion, also if this is accepted as needing to be done the 2 previous cases of josko and cof are rescinded as these were both after the vote in the cla to allow tourney sitting rules.

[Metsfanmax]

But the admins have done something about it in the past:

viewtopic.php?f=239&t=145859&start=255#p3229429

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

Here, ka is quite clearly saying that indefinitely sharing a password to take turns when needed, violates account sitting rules.

Very interesting. This seems grounds for reopening?

This case is of one person, who cannot play on weekends, every weekend and only weekends, having Josko cover for him. Again, this is within the rules. If Moonchild misses a turn during the week, but Josko jumped in, then that would be different. But he doesn't, Moonchild is just guaranteed to miss all of his turns on weekends. During the week- Moonchild. On weekends- Josko. It hasn't crossed over, and if it would have then it would be a different outcome. The player is declared, the player returns, that's it. Josko did not jump in when he saw Moonchild was approaching a missed turn, he announced it in chat to make sure everyone knew he was sitting in, Josko broke no rules.

Where would you all like the line to be drawn? There is no number we could come to that would be in any way shape or form fair, and if we removed account sitting completely, then the moment someone else logged into your account and we found out about it, it would be an infraction. According to the rules in place now, there was no rule broken.

Look, I don't claim to have a good answer for where the line should be drawn; I haven't thought about it that much. But ka says quite clearly that account sitting for an indefinite period of time is not acceptable, and that's exactly what we have here; josko plays turns for Moonchild every single weekend. That is account sharing at that point, because josko is now basically an equal partner in the goal of managing Moonchild's games, instead of someone who just sits in from time to time when Moonchild can't get to the computer. There is no question in my mind that wherever the line currently is, this steps over it. Now, ka's post is really kind of ambivalent about this matter, and as a result these things continue to happen because no one is taking a firm stance on the matter. This sort of thing will continue to happen as long as the C&A staff throw up their hands and say "we can't find a good line to draw." It's better to have a line that is arguable than to make the mistake of having no line at all.

[Funkyterrance]

But ka says quite clearly that account sitting for an indefinite period of time is not acceptable, and that's exactly what we have here; josko plays turns for Moonchild every single weekend. That is account sharing at that point, because josko is now basically an equal partner in the goal of managing Moonchild's games, instead of someone who just sits in from time to time when Moonchild can't get to the computer. There is no question in my mind that wherever the line currently is, this steps over it.

Put in this way I have to agree ; this is account sharing. Two people are undoubtedly playing the same account. One person plays on the weekdays, the other on the weekends. It actually doesn't get much more clear cut than that when put in this light. Thanks for providing this more "clear" way of viewing the situation ; I couldn't put my finger on what bothered me so much about it but there you have it.

[deathcomesrippin]

A line was drawn. He didn't break a rule. Just because we didn't rule in your favor doesn't mean that we did nothing. Whenever a "big" case or a complicated case comes through us, we all discuss it, the entire department. This is a ruling we discussed, examined each of our opinions, and came to a consensus. Contrary to everyones belief, we don't just look at a case and say "Damn, this is too complicated, screw it." and walk away. I know this won't change any opinions on us but it is the truth regardless.

I am going to leave this open for a handful more hours, and then lock this up and put it away. I always appreciate feedback even if it frustrates me, and I thank everyone for their input. If one wishes to attempt to re-open the case he can do so by following the instructions at the top. Here is a link to opening a ticket:
http://www.conquerclub.com/eticket/index.php#openticket

Thank you.

[Metsfanmax]

A line was drawn. He didn't break a rule. Just because we didn't rule in your favor doesn't mean that we did nothing. Whenever a "big" case or a complicated case comes through us, we all discuss it, the entire department. This is a ruling we discussed, examined each of our opinions, and came to a consensus. Contrary to everyones belief, we don't just look at a case and say "Damn, this is too complicated, screw it." and walk away. I know this won't change any opinions on us but it is the truth regardless.

I don't think anyone is accusing you of doing nothing. I am pointing out that the line that was drawn, in king achilles' post, was clearly crossed. You have not suggested an alternate line; you have simply said, in effect, that account sharing is acceptable as long as it is openly announced to the community.

One could easily assume this could be deliberate or another form of account sharing. For Josko and Moonchild to come out not suspicious or if any other players would be in the same situation as this, the right thing to do is to openly announce it as your signature or state it on your profile wall, and must be mentioned in all your games.

This ruling essentially nullifies the rule against account sharing, even if it was not intended. Again, I am not accusing you of not having thought about it. I am saying that you came to a conclusion that is in sharp contradiction to an established principle of the site, and it muddies the waters instead of clearing them up.

[Foxglove]

A line was drawn. He didn't break a rule. Just because we didn't rule in your favor doesn't mean that we did nothing. Whenever a "big" case or a complicated case comes through us, we all discuss it, the entire department. This is a ruling we discussed, examined each of our opinions, and came to a consensus. Contrary to everyones belief, we don't just look at a case and say "Damn, this is too complicated, screw it." and walk away. I know this won't change any opinions on us but it is the truth regardless.

I am going to leave this open for a handful more hours, and then lock this up and put it away. I always appreciate feedback even if it frustrates me, and I thank everyone for their input. If one wishes to attempt to re-open the case he can do so by following the instructions at the top. Here is a link to opening a ticket:
http://www.conquerclub.com/eticket/index.php#openticket

Thank you.

Thank you for being transparent about the process with this reasonable explanation!!

[Dako]

The ruling from KA that metsfanmax has brought does indeed raise questions.

Is every weekend a definite period of time (2 days, quite definite) or is it not (every weekend for many months - quite indefinite)? Is it ok if different players play weekend games for me and rotate all the time? Ie player A for week 1, then player B for week 2, then player C for week 3 and then player A for week 4. Is three months too long to share the accounts or not? Is one day an "ok" amount of time for other player to sit continuously? Are two days? The list can go on and on.


I have a lot of questions and none of them are answered yet. Can C&A mods do that please? Because right now every C&A case has a verdict but each time they decide what is above board and what is below from scratch. I would like to see C&A to define numbers and periods for at least such important things as account sitting, farming/ranching, point dumping. Those 3 issues create most complicated cases of the C&A department and got to be clarified asap. That will help both community and the C&A department. It is even ok to choose wrong numbers, we can always alter them later. But living in this turmoil without any standards is getting harder and harder.

[Ishihara]

Agreed. In this case though, Moonchild *does* take most of his turns. What percentage of a player's turns should a sitter be allowed to take? This is a good example of why the site desperately needs a sitting feature to track those sort of stats. They could be used by the C&A team to make decisions, and by clans, as well, to determine acceptable maximums for clan wars.

I'm surprised someone hasn't done the math yet, but out of curiousity, exactly what percentage of the games did Moon take himself? IMHO, the anti-sitting hard liners are just plain being silly. One of the benefits of the clan life is that you can have a few friends cover your back - the benefits overall to the quality of the games on this site (from not having a missed turn) far, far outweigh the abuses of a few when they occur. And we do have a system in place to address problems when we think they are occurring (thanks again, C&A mods).

[Chewie1]

One of the benefits of the clan life is that you can have a few friends cover your back - the benefits overall to the quality of the games on this site (from not having a missed turn) far, far outweigh the abuses of a few when they occur. And we do have a system in place to address problems when we think they are occurring (thanks again, C&A mods).

+1

[Chariot of Fire]

Sitting is a necessary feature of the site as everyone at some stage or another has occasion to be away for more than 24 hours.

What is not a necessary feature of the site is to continue joining games in the knowledge you cannot take your own turns, yet this is exactly what is going on here and has been for three months already.

Metsfanmax brought up the pertinent ruling, in KA's own words:

"Account sitting is for a definite period of time and NOT for an indefinite period. You can't assign an account sitter to account sit for you for as long as his blood is running into his veins. Then you can now sleep soundly whenever or do other stuff because you know he is going to save you from missing a turn"

Three months so far seems pretty indefinite to me don't you think? With all the players available in that clan why do they insist on fielding a player whose turns have to be taken by another? And if you can't already see the advantage being gained from such an arrangement then you need only look at the stats again in the OP.

[Eddy_26]

Metsfanmax brought up the pertinent ruling, in KA's own words:

"Account sitting is for a definite period of time and NOT for an indefinite period. You can't assign an account sitter to account sit for you for as long as his blood is running into his veins. Then you can now sleep soundly whenever or do other stuff because you know he is going to save you from missing a turn"

Three months so far seems pretty indefinite to me don't you think? With all the players available in that clan why do they insist on fielding a player whose turns have to be taken by another? And if you can't already see the advantage being gained from such an arrangement then you need only look at the stats again in the OP.

Nice try, but you know it meant something different. Josko's sitting is not indefinite. it starts every Saturday, and ends every Sunday. That is a defined length of time.

and the real crux of the matter is that he is being entered into games that require a great deal of patience and knowledge on the part of the player (unlimited forts, first turn) and it's no coincidence that a majority of these moves have been taken by his sitter.

you have gained too much control over your unlimited games. That is your forte and how you win challenges for your clan. Whether it’s strictly against the rules or not, you are playing the very important turns for other players in a very time consuming game, in which doing so gains you an advantage.

Do you guys play your first turn unlimited clan games on your own or something? I figured most teams do it together, or atleast with a teammate around. I was entered into an unlimited game for the cup. My first real competitive game with the setting. Soooo, why wasn't I sat for in the all important first turn? Obviously the biggest advantage to be gained was by sitting for me. And even more interesting, why was moon also discussing the turns?

Because that's just it, we actually discuss the turns. It's Josko's forte, but it's still a team game, and we play it as a team. Josko is actually one of the more involving players. You guys have assumed it's a dictatorship. It's clear what CoF's thinking was here, that since he'd covered turns in the past out of just wanting to do it himself (there's your dictatorship) that Josko shared the same practices.

I'm wondering, why did you enter Pedro into clan games when you consistently had to sit for him one night a week. For months. Oh, that's right! He didn't actually need sitting...

[Chariot of Fire]

It is indefinite Eddy - unless you can categorically state on which Sunday this practice is going to stop.

As for the remainder of your post it really bears no relevance as it's immaterial how you as a clan plan your strategy or collaborate on turns. What's pertinent is why a player is being entered into team games beyond the point where it was known he had no internet.

[Eddy_26]

It is indefinite Eddy - unless you can categorically state on which Sunday this practice is going to stop.

As for the remainder of your post it really bears no relevance as it's immaterial how you as a clan plan your strategy or collaborate on turns. What's pertinent is why a player is being entered into team games beyond the point where it was known he had no internet.

I believe the previous ruling took the same view I did. The problem was that people were just being sat for whenever it looked like they were going to miss, or something like that, where as this is something different.
As for you thinking the rest is irrelevent, your main problem is that we're apparently gaining some sort of advantage from this, and my post pointed out that that's not true. I suppose it is immaterial, as Josko was already cleared of that

[Chariot of Fire]

Yes, I do believe it is an unfair advantage for a player to enter 40% of his games in an unlimited forts setting and have the majority of his first turns played by one of the site's best exponents at this format. With a 100% record it's also rather difficult to refute that. Has it affected me personally? No. Will it if the practice is allowed to continue and TOFU face KORT in January? Yes. It seems unreasonable that a player is allowed to keep entering games which he cannot undertake to play himself.

If Moonchild plays 62% of the time and Josko plays 38% of the time week after week (month after month) on the same account, what better example of account sharing is there? And it's not a simple case of Josko taking Moonchild's spot in those games because he is already in them himself, thus in effect controlling two players on the same team.

Just making a declaration that you'll be sitting for someone and posting such in chat does not absolve you from the rights and wrongs - and what is so wrong here is that it is unnecessary and yet it continues.

A simple ruling that restricts Moonchild from entering team games until such time as he has internet access is all that is really required. I'd have thought that was a fairly obvious resolution from a site that requires a player to log in every 24 hours.

[josko.ri]

Yes, I do believe it is an unfair advantage for a player to enter 40% of his games in an unlimited forts setting and have the majority of his first turns played by one of the site's best exponents at this format. With a 100% record it's also rather difficult to refute that. Has it affected me personally? No. Will it if the practice is allowed to continue and TOFU face KORT in January? Yes. It seems unreasonable that a player is allowed to keep entering games which he cannot undertake to play himself.

as for the numbers, my winning % in unlimited is not 100%, it is about 80-85% (read page 2 for more accurate info).

About % of turns sit by Moonchild (also related to Ishihara's post who asked that):
I have counted all games together that we played from end of September until 30th Nov, the day of counting data, used R3 of CL3 like starting point.

here are results:
25 games played together
0 sitting 1 game (just 3 rounds played)
1 sitting 7 games
2 sitting 11 games
3 sitting 4 games
4 sitting 1 game (of 13 rounds)
5 sitting 1 game (of 17 round)

% hours per week when Moonchild is absent (64/168 hours) 38,1%
% turns sat by me in all those games together (50/174) 28,7%
% hours per week that sitting need to be done in IDEAL situation, assuming that Moonchild is always on his job at 4 p.m., and that I am always online so I can play his last turn 24 exactly hours before his coming back time (64-24=40/168) 23,8%

So the fact that in 23,8% of time (ideal situation) it is no way to avoid sitting for Moonchild and that I sat only 28,7% of his turns in the said period of 2 months, which is much less than 38,1% of the time that he is absent from his computer, proves enough that I also take care about making my own turns which are prior to his turns faster/slower in order that his turn do not come in period of his absence.

I can harder manage this if our games are joined in thursday by away team, like it was in OSA challenge. Not once it happened that start of games were delayed by low days due to some players absence, so delay joining away games until sunday evening when knowing for a player absence is ideal way to avoid sitting in round 1 as you call it the most important round. Round 1 lasts in general shorter than 5 days, so opening turn of absent player would come until Friday if games are joined by away team in sunday. and this is what I propose if sitting in round 1 bothers you so lot. When I have 5 days to forecast when moonchild's will come, then hasting or stalling turns can be done much more effective than when away games are joined on thursday, which was in OSA challenge.

If Moonchild plays 62% of the time and Josko plays 38% of the time week after week (month after month) on the same account, what better example of account sharing is there? And it's not a simple case of Josko taking Moonchild's spot in those games because he is already in them himself, thus in effect controlling two players on the same team.

As stated in previous comment, number of turns sat is relevant, not number of time absent. for example, if you sleep 8 hours per day, that means at least 33% of your time you are absent from CC, but regardless of that you need 0% of the time someone sit for you. It is irrelevant how much time moonchild is absent, relevant info is how much of his turns need to be sit. and that is 28,7% from the time when he lost internet at home (if you disagree, you are free to provide more accurate data with links)

A simple ruling that restricts Moonchild from entering team games until such time as he has internet access is all that is really required. I'd have thought that was a fairly obvious resolution from a site that requires a player to log in every 24 hours.

When it was case about you, as part of your defense you stated that Pedronicus needed sitting at least one day per week due to his poker nights. So why did you put him into games if his absence for one day per every week was known?

... and another proof that I in any way do not want to gain unfair advantage but I try all my best to minimize sitting for Moonchild as much as possible:
from Ishihara wall, 5 days before the case was oppened. it can be still found on his wall to check.

"11962356 Moonchild is away this weekend, I am sitting maybe better join the 5 set on monday

by josko.ri
on Sat Nov 24, 2012 2:06 am"

I realized that Ishihara sent invites to his player in british isles games on Friday and therefore walled him, to avoid sitting in opening turn(s). he then sent invites on Monday. Another example of my honor and no wishing to gain any advantage by sitting for moonchild during weekends. not team games though (1v1 challenge) but still clan challenge.

[king achilles]

I believe deathcomesrippin has already explained how this has been noted. Most of the games presented in this case are related to clan games so we see this case also connected to clan wars. If a person is really unable to take his turn, he can have an account sitter to cover for him. It only becomes questionable if it was intentional which is how past similar cases were all about. Indefinite, definite, scheduled, etc. = first, establish if the owner was ever available during any time when a sitter was taking turns for him or even when he could have taken the turn by himself. Do we have anything to show that they were talking or planning when the owner would be intentionally unavailable? If there is none, and they even informed the other clan of what the situation would be, we can give the benefit of doubt to both parties and note the report for now.

[The Voice]

Indeed, this is a case for the CDs. I'm anxious to learn what new rules are in the works and how they apply to sitting in clan games. With implementation of new rules, there will be those who perceive themselves as being winners or losers, as with every decision on this site, but life goes on. (This is a preemptive counter to the inevitable whining.)

CoF, I believe you when you say this case was nothing personal. However, I would argue there is a better way of addressing your concern about Josko's ability in unlimited. It's sticking to the old adage "practice makes perfect." Josko's great, but he's not infallible, as he pointed out.

EDIT: There's also the adage, "if you can't beat them, join them." Maybe KoRT is accepting applications.

[josko.ri]

What is not a necessary feature of the site is to continue joining games in the knowledge you cannot take your own turns

Your post from 5 months ago:
viewtopic.php?f=239&t=174462&start=75#p3812587

Pedro has trouble at work taking turns and on Thursday evenings is unavailable (as well as many weekends if he is away doing his art)

So, even when you knew that Pedro is unavailable Thursday evenings as well as many weekends, he was put in 15 of 28 games which were maximal allowed to play in CL4 Phase 2.

Isn't that pretty hypocrite doings from you?

[Chariot of Fire]

What is not a necessary feature of the site is to continue joining games in the knowledge you cannot take your own turns

Your post from 5 months ago:
viewtopic.php?f=239&t=174462&start=75#p3812587

Pedro has trouble at work taking turns and on Thursday evenings is unavailable (as well as many weekends if he is away doing his art)

So, even when you knew that Pedro is unavailable Thursday evenings as well as many weekends, he was put in 15 of 28 games which were maximal allowed to play in CL4 Phase 2.

Isn't that pretty hypocrite doings from you?

I fail to see your point. For starters Pedro was absent for one evening in a week, not exceeding a 24 hour period, thus was able to predict that he could take all his turns in the usual way. Secondly, if you wish to draw parallels and comparisons to that case then maybe the same ruling or punishment should be meted out in this one? What I do or have done has no bearing on what you are currently doing and getting away with. Or would you like it to be compared?

[josko.ri]

What is not a necessary feature of the site is to continue joining games in the knowledge you cannot take your own turns

Your post from 5 months ago:
viewtopic.php?f=239&t=174462&start=75#p3812587

Pedro has trouble at work taking turns and on Thursday evenings is unavailable (as well as many weekends if he is away doing his art)

So, even when you knew that Pedro is unavailable Thursday evenings as well as many weekends, he was put in 15 of 28 games which were maximal allowed to play in CL4 Phase 2.

Isn't that pretty hypocrite doings from you?

I fail to see your point. For starters Pedro was absent for one evening in a week, not exceeding a 24 hour period, thus was able to predict that he could take all his turns in the usual way. Secondly, if you wish to draw parallels and comparisons to that case then maybe the same ruling or punishment should be meted out in this one? What I do or have done has no bearing on what you are currently doing and getting away with. Or would you like it to be compared?

I do not mind it to be compared, because doings in the 2 cases were totally different, as is verdict. I believe you were not busted because of sitting for Pedro during his absent weekends but you were busted for doing many other things such as this: (you proposed to make comparisons, I accepted the proposal, so here goes the comparison)

What Chariot of Fire did in this report viewtopic.php?f=239&t=174462, comparing with what josko.ri did the current report:
a) Sitting for the player who is online at the same time like him. To not be catch in doing so, they made agreement that Chariot of Fire log in, and then original player log in, so nobody can catch them by seeing Hong Kong flag in sitting player profile. He was fully aware that it is against rules and he did everything to hide it. In Game 11176769 he did it for every 3 players, even when he was not original player in that game. He would never be caught if his teammate did not report him.
Sitting for the player who is absent from Friday afternoon to Monday morning, and actually my sitting is one day shorter, because the turns which starts at Sunday morning I leave to Moonchild so he can catch them in Monday morning when come back to job.
b) He never point in chat that he was sitting. Therefore, he would never be discovered in his cheating, if his teammate did not report him. He did it because he was aware that he is doing gross abuse of the game.
I every time report my sitting in game chat. I think I do not do anything against rules, so I do not have anything to hide.
c) His opponents did not have idea that he is doing gross game abuse in games vs them.
My opponents were informed in advance that Moonchild will be absent during every weekend days, and they had agreed about that.
d) He played maximal number of allowed games in Clan League 4 Phase1 (28/28) and in addition on that he also made numerous sitting for other players. So, he was overused player in that war.
I played 14 of maximal 20 games in KORT vs OSA war. If I wished to play more, I could do it from my profile, I did not needed sitting for Moonchild to play more games than allowed.

Just make comparisons between red doings and blue doings and you will maybe get point why those 2 cases are totally different doings, as are verdicts. one case was gross abuse of account sitting system, and other case was no rule breaking.

[Chariot of Fire]

Repeat, for your convenience:

What I do or have done has no bearing on what you are currently doing and getting away with

The simple fact is Moonchild controls his account from Monday morning to Friday afternoon. You then control his account from Friday evening to 9.00am Monday morning. You are in simple truth sharing one account. I have also cited examples of where you have played your turn early (e.g. after just a few hours from when it's due) so that Moonchild's turn will fall due over the weekend - which could have been avoided - and which is totally contrary to what you claim to have done.

[josko.ri]

Repeat, for your convenience:

What I do or have done has no bearing on what you are currently doing and getting away with

The simple fact is Moonchild controls his account from Monday morning to Friday afternoon. You then control his account from Friday evening to 9.00am Monday morning. You are in simple truth sharing one account. I have also cited examples of where you have played your turn early (e.g. after just a few hours from when it's due) so that Moonchild's turn will fall due over the weekend - which could have been avoided - and which is totally contrary to what you claim to have done.

I cannot always be online 24 hours per day and always wait until the last moment to stall my turns. I do it when I can but I cannot do it everytime as I am not 0/24 on CC. I can also provide much more examples where I haste my Thursday turn which were prior to Moonchild turns, in order that he gets chance to catch his own turn on Friday. The most representative example is Game 11960113 for example, where I played my own opening Thursday turn with 23.40 hours left on the timer in order to let Moonchild chance to catch his Friday turn. It did not happen finally because yellow took a lot of time for his turn, but my point is my own effort to give Moonchild chance to catch his turn. Hasting turns previous to his is much easier way than stalling turns during weekend, because hasting Thursday turn is easy, I see turn and I play. Stalling Saturday turn is harder, because it can happen that I get stuck in real life and become unable to come back to play the turn, so with weekend stalling I increase danger of potential miss. Just to point out, there was no single other unlimited fort opening turn that I have ever played in any my CC game with 23.40 or less hours left on timer. SO obviously for this one was some special reason, and this was haste turn in order to get chance to Moonchild to possible catch his turn in Friday. I could very easy stall my Thursday turn, and thus making sure Moon turn would come on Saturday, if I wished so. The fact that I played it with 23.40 hours left on timer only proves that my wish was increasing chance to Moonchild to catch the turn on Friday.

[Chariot of Fire]

The "I murdered two people but I didn't murder that guy sitting over there, even though I could have done" defence. Nice.

You carry on being you (and Moonchild every weekend). I've said all I wish to on the matter, other than that I expect you'll find members of whichever clan faces KORT in the Cup semi-finals will also find this practice unacceptable.