Conquer Club

Accused:

jgordon1111
wetmk

The accused are suspected of:
Other: Account Sitting Abuse

Game number(s):
Game 9483744

Comments:

Game 9483744 is a 5 player Terminator game. jgordon1111 anounced in game chat that he was sitting a turn for wetmk who is an opponent in that game.

Both players play a lot of team games together, so I thought that jgordon's sitting that game may have been accidental, and warned him that he wasn't supposed to play as wetmk in that game. The next round (a few hours later) wetmk's and jgordon's turns were taken about 2 minutes apart.

Busted

warned

true i didnt pay attention to the game thought it was one of our team games/didnt realize we had one where we were opponents and didnt read the chat, sorry it will take a while between turns i will skip wetmks turns in this one

The rules clearly state that you can't sit for someone if they are your opponent in any current game.

metsfan i am aware of the rules as i stated i was not paying attention that we had a game where me and wetmk were opponents/i dont usually join games that already have my clan members involved/my mistake,my responsibility to look and make sure it wasnt a team game,and i didnt . myself and the other two players involved have worked it out,in a friendly manner no hard feelings between us

Metsfanmax wrote:The rules clearly state that you can't sit for someone if they are your opponent in any current game.

He was WARNED. He is aware of the violation. It does not seem to be malicious as far as the announced turn he took. He took one from himself.

2011-08-08 16:45:59 - wetmk assaulted Moscow from Istanbul and conquered it from jgordon1111

Looks like he was just sitting - just running thru turns and not paying much attention. He isn't contesting the violation and he also clearly states that he will be avoiding sitting in this game.

So mets how about ya not stir things up...

jefjef wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:The rules clearly state that you can't sit for someone if they are your opponent in any current game.

He was WARNED. He is aware of the violation. It does not seem to be malicious as far as the announced turn he took. He took one from himself.

2011-08-08 16:45:59 - wetmk assaulted Moscow from Istanbul and conquered it from jgordon1111

Looks like he was just sitting - just running thru turns and not paying much attention. He isn't contesting the violation and he also clearly states that he will be avoiding sitting in this game.

So mets how about ya not stir things up...

I'm not stirring things up. jgordon seems to be under the impression that the rule states that he can't sit for a player in the game that they're playing against each other in. But the rule clearly states that if they're playing any games together, then jgordon cannot sit for him at all. In any game.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:The rules clearly state that you can't sit for someone if they are your opponent in any current game.

I'm not stirring things up. jgordon seems to be under the impression that the rule states that he can't sit for a player in the game that they're playing against each other in. But the rule clearly states that if they're playing any games together, then jgordon cannot sit for him at all. In any game.

Where do you get that from?
Certainly not this:

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.

(the game, singular, referring specifically to a game and not to all his games.)

Is there another place?

Yes, he cannot sit for X in game 123456 because they both are playing it as opponents.
but, he CAN sit for X in game 123457, a game that he is not playing in.
and he CAN sit for X in game 1234568, a game that x and him are on the same team.

thanks,
J

Straight from the FAQ:

17. Can I let another player take a turn for me when I am away from the game?

You can, 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.

Metsfanmax wrote:Straight from the FAQ:

17. Can I let another player take a turn for me when I am away from the game?

You can, 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.

I see how you came up with it now.

Hmmm...wow, that is not in the rules. If they intend on enforcing the faq as a rule, then I would suggest that they include that in the wording of the actual post of the guidelines in sitting. I know that I would not have gotten that from the guideline I posted previously, and would not have looked at the faq in that way. Perhaps, if, that is how CC means it, then, they should include it in the rule. CC needs to adjust one or both to ensure consistency.

I know that I would hate to be in trouble for sitting abuse for a situation involving this example. I would argue that it is not in the rules. I don't believe the faq would qualify, as I would have looked for rules and guidelines. I would ask the C&A mods to bring this up and get it clarified as soon as possible. If Mets is right, then have the guideline adjusted, and if he is not, then adjust the faq. One should not have to search out every single post on the site just to know a rule, they should be in a central location.

thanks,
J

OK guys this is how I have always interpreted the rule, and until I am told otherwise I will continue to enforce the rule the way that I have been.

You can account sit for someone as long as you do not sit for them in a game that both of you are in. Example: I have about 30 active games. TheForgivenOne is in one of those games. He could sit for me in all the other games and just not in the game that we are both in.

I hope that clears up some of the confusion.

Evil Semp wrote:OK guys this is how I have always interpreted the rule, and until I am told otherwise I will continue to enforce the rule the way that I have been.

You can account sit for someone as long as you do not sit for them in a game that both of you are in. Example: I have about 30 active games. TheForgivenOne is in one of those games. He could sit for me in all the other games and just not in the game that we are both in.

I hope that clears up some of the confusion.

It does clear up the confusion regarding enforcement of the rule, but also implies that the FAQ should be corrected (I assumed that was a better place to look for the rules than the forum guidelines).

That being said, there's a non-trivial difference between the two situations. If TFO is sitting for you, that means he can still look at your game with him even if he doesn't play the turn, and that has some implications for fog and/or team games, where he would have access to some information he wouldn't normally have. If the C&A mods are OK with that, it's OK with me, but I just wanted to point this out.

lol Mets is just trying to get account sitting outlawed still.

The FAQ is poorly worded. No surprise there, many spots on the site have things that were not gone over finely and need to be clarified.

To address your last point, if you don't trust someone to not look at your gamechats and/or PMs, don't let them sit for you.

This is from the RULES section:

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.

Not hard to understand at all...

If you guys want a rewording of the FAQ/Rule, maybe pop over to Suggestions? Or you could PM Andy, and i'm sure he would be willing to clear things up and/or fix the wording in whichever is wrong (The FAQ or Rule)

Ace Rimmer wrote:lol Mets is just trying to get account sitting outlawed still.

The FAQ is poorly worded. No surprise there, many spots on the site have things that were not gone over finely and need to be clarified.

To address your last point, if you don't trust someone to not look at your gamechats and/or PMs, don't let them sit for you.

No, I legitimately thought the FAQ was the ultimate law for account sitting. I didn't even know the sitting thing was addressed in the community guidelines (because those are supposed to be forum guidelines, not game rules!). I have nothing to do with account sitting, so please forgive my naivety in that regard, I just didn't even know there was a conflict with what I had read.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Ace Rimmer wrote:lol Mets is just trying to get account sitting outlawed still.

The FAQ is poorly worded. No surprise there, many spots on the site have things that were not gone over finely and need to be clarified.

To address your last point, if you don't trust someone to not look at your gamechats and/or PMs, don't let them sit for you.

No, I legitimately thought the FAQ was the ultimate law for account sitting. I didn't even know the sitting thing was addressed in the community guidelines (because those are supposed to be forum guidelines, not game rules!). I have nothing to do with account sitting, so please forgive my naivety in that regard, I just didn't even know there was a conflict with what I had read.

hmmmm...moderator who has not won the community guidelines

ljex wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Ace Rimmer wrote:lol Mets is just trying to get account sitting outlawed still.

The FAQ is poorly worded. No surprise there, many spots on the site have things that were not gone over finely and need to be clarified.

To address your last point, if you don't trust someone to not look at your gamechats and/or PMs, don't let them sit for you.

No, I legitimately thought the FAQ was the ultimate law for account sitting. I didn't even know the sitting thing was addressed in the community guidelines (because those are supposed to be forum guidelines, not game rules!). I have nothing to do with account sitting, so please forgive my naivety in that regard, I just didn't even know there was a conflict with what I had read.

hmmmm...moderator who has not won the community guidelines

I've naturally read the community guidelines, but I didn't memorize every single thing in there, and I'm sure you did not when you were on the team either. When I wanted to refresh my memory on the rule about account sitting, I didn't go to the community guidelines because that's not where I'd logically expect the rule to be (as it's a game mechanic, so it should be in the rules or FAQ section). I will indeed ask Andy to update the FAQ information, assuming that ES's view point on the situation is fine with the admins.

Just for closure on this topic -- the FAQ has now been changed to line up with what was said in the Community Guidelines. Thanks again everyone who contributed to that.