Conquer Club

OK, so what is the line? Who draws that line? Who enforces that line?

There have been multiple cases brought forth in the recent past, against many a highly respected player, each with a unique and interesting outcome.
Are the rules different for the clan world?
Should they be?
It appears (strongly) as though the standard is different.
Is that good or bad?
I know this is an emotional topic but, there has to be a consensus somewhere.
Is it possible for us to figure this out without beating the hell out of each other over our affiliations?
The C&A Mods seem to say it's not their area.

The Cd team will be posting a new set of rules shortly. And I am sure things may get emotional

Maybe the 20 game cap for the CC Cup, for example, should include games sat?

Off topic!!

L M S why is this your favorite game? Game 11812020

L M S wrote:Maybe the 20 game cap for the CC Cup, for example, should include games sat?

That makes sense.

I think what we really need are specific rules with *numbers* - so that we all know exactly what is acceptable and what isn't. I think Dako said this in the C&A thread as well, and I totally agree. And in addition to that, we need specific consequences for breaking the rules.

I would love to have numbers for what percentage of turns are allowed to be sat in the normal course of a war. Is it ok to predictably have your turns sat 4 weekends per month? 3? 2? 1? 1 fixed day per week? 5 fixed days per month? X turns per Y games? Is it acceptable for the same person to sit all of the turns? What if each weekend is handled by a different person? What if the same person sits games for every person in the clan?

Subjective rules are obviously not creating a lot of goodwill and harmony in the clan world.

Foxglove wrote:

L M S wrote:Maybe the 20 game cap for the CC Cup, for example, should include games sat?

That makes sense.

I think what we really need are specific rules with *numbers* - so that we all know exactly what is acceptable and what isn't. I think Dako said this in the C&A thread as well, and I totally agree. And in addition to that, we need specific consequences for breaking the rules.

I would love to have numbers for what percentage of turns are allowed to be sat in the normal course of a war. Is it ok to predictably have your turns sat 4 weekends per month? 3? 2? 1? 1 fixed day per week? 5 fixed days per month? X turns per Y games? Is it acceptable for the same person to sit all of the turns? What if each weekend is handled by a different person? What if the same person sits games for every person in the clan?

Subjective rules are obviously not creating a lot of goodwill and harmony in the clan world.

Perhaps we need a 'DH', is that what you are saying? Someone who does the sitting, and only the sitting in clan wars? I had thought about this awhile ago, but decided it would put too much pressure on one person in a war....maybe I was wrong about that.
Sorry for my non-baseball friends...'DH' stands for Designated Hitter.

#1_stunna wrote:Off topic!!

L M S why is this your favorite game? Game 11812020

lol, Stunna, nice catch.
That game sealed the TLO for my team, even before we went on to win the last round. We would have won it regardless (since we won our last round), but I watched that particular game very closely - just in case.

*****

BGtheBrain wrote:i was expecting discussion in this forum to form the rules that will be applied to all clans regarding sitting.

AND.....hopefully it stays civil and productive.

L M S wrote:

Foxglove wrote:

L M S wrote:Maybe the 20 game cap for the CC Cup, for example, should include games sat?

That makes sense.

I think what we really need are specific rules with *numbers* - so that we all know exactly what is acceptable and what isn't. I think Dako said this in the C&A thread as well, and I totally agree. And in addition to that, we need specific consequences for breaking the rules.

I would love to have numbers for what percentage of turns are allowed to be sat in the normal course of a war. Is it ok to predictably have your turns sat 4 weekends per month? 3? 2? 1? 1 fixed day per week? 5 fixed days per month? X turns per Y games? Is it acceptable for the same person to sit all of the turns? What if each weekend is handled by a different person? What if the same person sits games for every person in the clan?

Subjective rules are obviously not creating a lot of goodwill and harmony in the clan world.

Perhaps we need a 'DH', is that what you are saying? Someone who does the sitting, and only the sitting in clan wars? I had thought about this awhile ago, but decided it would put too much pressure on one person in a war....maybe I was wrong about that.
Sorry for my non-baseball friends...'DH' stands for Designated Hitter.

Oh, no - I think that's a terrible idea, actually, to just have one person. I just think these are all things that need to be considered.

I feel like sitting rules for clans should be different than non-clan games, because the stakes are so much higher. A missed turn in a normal game that causes a loss - no big deal, you lose some points. But what if a missed turn in a clan game causes a lost game, which causes a lost war, which knocks a clan out of a year-long tournament? In my mind, that's a big deal. I feel that we should be able to step in for our team mates when necessary.

And to the people who pipe up and say "it's just a game, suck it up" - it's true, it's a game. But a lot of us put a lot of time and energy into this game hobby, because we enjoy it. It's perfectly reasonable to take a hobby seriously, and that's what a lot of clans are about.

In clan wars and tournaments I personally feel one should expect to play one's opponent, and not a sitter.

Obviously that's not always possible. One thing I did in TLO 2012 IV is: ask the Team Captains not to assign games to players that were going to be absent for a certain time, i.e., holidays, etc.

I think in the tournament that pretty much worked, however, as a TO or even CD it's very hard to check those things because we don't have multi-hunter tools. It was all on a voluntary basis, but I know many Team Captains honored my request.

Lx

Foxglove wrote:

L M S wrote:

Foxglove wrote:

L M S wrote:Maybe the 20 game cap for the CC Cup, for example, should include games sat?

That makes sense.

I think what we really need are specific rules with *numbers* - so that we all know exactly what is acceptable and what isn't. I think Dako said this in the C&A thread as well, and I totally agree. And in addition to that, we need specific consequences for breaking the rules.

I would love to have numbers for what percentage of turns are allowed to be sat in the normal course of a war. Is it ok to predictably have your turns sat 4 weekends per month? 3? 2? 1? 1 fixed day per week? 5 fixed days per month? X turns per Y games? Is it acceptable for the same person to sit all of the turns? What if each weekend is handled by a different person? What if the same person sits games for every person in the clan?

Subjective rules are obviously not creating a lot of goodwill and harmony in the clan world.

Perhaps we need a 'DH', is that what you are saying? Someone who does the sitting, and only the sitting in clan wars? I had thought about this awhile ago, but decided it would put too much pressure on one person in a war....maybe I was wrong about that.
Sorry for my non-baseball friends...'DH' stands for Designated Hitter.

Oh, no - I think that's a terrible idea, actually, to just have one person. I just think these are all things that need to be considered.

I feel like sitting rules for clans should be different than non-clan games, because the stakes are so much higher. A missed turn in a normal game that causes a loss - no big deal, you lose some points. But what if a missed turn in a clan game causes a lost game, which causes a lost war, which knocks a clan out of a year-long tournament? In my mind, that's a big deal. I feel that we should be able to step in for our team mates when necessary.

And to the people who pipe up and say "it's just a game, suck it up" - it's true, it's a game. But a lot of us put a lot of time and energy into this game hobby, because we enjoy it. It's perfectly reasonable to take a hobby seriously, and that's what a lot of clans are about.

Whilst there is (probably) little harm in taking a hobby seriously there are always going to be those that take it much more seriously than others, giving the onlookers the viewpoint that they take it too seriously.

If someone is likely to be absent for a period of say 2 weeks due to holidays then they simply shouldn't be entering any team games (including clan wars) or tourneys that are starting a week or so before their holiday (or known time away) is due to start. Something that they could reasonably expect to have ended before their absence when starting games should allow sitters

If someone is unable to log on regularly on specific days (regardless of whether it's weekends or weekdays) then they should not be playing games where others have to rely on them (team games or tourneys), end of and should not be allowed sitters.

For those where something comes up (whether it be for a day or unlimited ongoing) then fair enough for games to be covered to conclusion, TDs should be approached for their take as to whether to remove any given player or allow sitting or for them to bring in a replacement should it be on ongoing issue.

Even with my limited experience of clan wars I've seen that one person has ended up playing nearly every move for his clan in a number of games, it's simply not right, if it were a viable clan then it's members would be playing themselves, not ceding (for whatever reasons) to one or two others after a few moves through to game completion. IF the majority of the clan can't turn up once a day to play their moves then dissolve the clan and those that can should find more reliable team mates.

Vid_FISO wrote:Whilst there is (probably) little harm in taking a hobby seriously there are always going to be those that take it much more seriously than others, giving the onlookers the viewpoint that they take it too seriously.

If someone is likely to be absent for a period of say 2 weeks due to holidays then they simply shouldn't be entering any team games (including clan wars) or tourneys that are starting a week or so before their holiday (or known time away) is due to start. Something that they could reasonably expect to have ended before their absence when starting games should allow sitters

If someone is unable to log on regularly on specific days (regardless of whether it's weekends or weekdays) then they should not be playing games where others have to rely on them (team games or tourneys), end of and should not be allowed sitters.

For those where something comes up (whether it be for a day or unlimited ongoing) then fair enough for games to be covered to conclusion, TDs should be approached for their take as to whether to remove any given player or allow sitting or for them to bring in a replacement should it be on ongoing issue.

Even with my limited experience of clan wars I've seen that one person has ended up playing nearly every move for his clan in a number of games, it's simply not right, if it were a viable clan then it's members would be playing themselves, not ceding (for whatever reasons) to one or two others after a few moves through to game completion. IF the majority of the clan can't turn up once a day to play their moves then dissolve the clan and those that can should find more reliable team mates.

Well said, and this is one of the key points in the new rules. We are just finishing them up but they will be posted here in the next day or two.

Vid_FISO wrote:Whilst there is (probably) little harm in taking a hobby seriously there are always going to be those that take it much more seriously than others, giving the onlookers the viewpoint that they take it too seriously.

If someone is likely to be absent for a period of say 2 weeks due to holidays then they simply shouldn't be entering any team games (including clan wars) or tourneys that are starting a week or so before their holiday (or known time away) is due to start. Something that they could reasonably expect to have ended before their absence when starting games should allow sitters

If someone is unable to log on regularly on specific days (regardless of whether it's weekends or weekdays) then they should not be playing games where others have to rely on them (team games or tourneys), end of and should not be allowed sitters.

For those where something comes up (whether it be for a day or unlimited ongoing) then fair enough for games to be covered to conclusion, TDs should be approached for their take as to whether to remove any given player or allow sitting or for them to bring in a replacement should it be on ongoing issue.

Even with my limited experience of clan wars I've seen that one person has ended up playing nearly every move for his clan in a number of games, it's simply not right, if it were a viable clan then it's members would be playing themselves, not ceding (for whatever reasons) to one or two others after a few moves through to game completion. IF the majority of the clan can't turn up once a day to play their moves then dissolve the clan and those that can should find more reliable team mates.

I don't fundamentally disagree with you I guess.........but it is hardly as black and white an issue as you have described it, at least to my mind. There must be an equitable way to allow everyone to play while removing the opportunity for abuse, perceived or actual.
It starts with well thought out, clearly defined rules and I think input on the rules from those of us that are in the trenches every day is a requirement.

I am interested to see what the new rules are here !!!

I am a player that takes the game seriously. I don't like the idea of of my clan losing a war because I had some kind of computer problem or I was sick and no one could sit my turns for an odd day that something happened ( not good )
I am in every war that we have, some more than others and I have taken 99% of my turns I am on all the time and do not miss turns by choice. I do not think it is unreasonable to say that if I was sick or went MIA for a day because something happened that someone could jump in and take my turn !!
there should be no problem with that.
Now if a person is gone for a long time and someone needs to sit for him. Than that person should not be even playing !!!

I can see the problem from both sides of the fence but it will be hard to make any kind of good comment here until I see the new rules.

I personally would like to see a limit to the number of turns that can be covered by a sitter. Say 2 for every 10 games in a war, so in 51 game war 10 turns could be covered by a sitter by each clan. A sitter should also be another player in the same game, no additional help from other clan members not involved in that game.

Keefie wrote:I personally would like to see a limit to the number of turns that can be covered by a sitter. Say 2 for every 10 games in a war, so in 51 game war 10 turns could be covered by a sitter by each clan. A sitter should also be another player in the same game, no additional help from other clan members not involved in that game.

You can't force someone to use another player as a sitter. If they chose Bob as a sitter, just because Bob's not in the game doesn't mean you can force him to start trusting Joe with his password. It would force more and more people needing a password.

I don't think that you can make a hard and fast rule like that, something happens in player A's life so player B is the nominated sitter and something happens in his life could mean for the sake of a not having others sitting for one or both of them a long wait is forced upon the rest of the players and an all but won game lost.

Prolonged absences have to be on a case by case basis.

The larger problem that has to be addressed has to be the widespread sharing of log in details within some groups of players and those that jump in to play moves simply because they can. Add to that those that never intended to play their own moves throughout in the first place.

This is so stupid. I guess I would have to know what abuse is, I have maybe 3 or 4 times been able to take a turn within the first 18 hours but I wasnt sure on the move, but then I had to leave with only 6 hours remaining so I will text a clanmate what I was planning and to take the turn since I wont be back in 6 hours (maybe this is abuse to a select few anal retentives). I have hardly seen any abuse of clan sitting ever and I think it is ridiculous to impose a rule because 1% of games or less have a serious violation. I expect to cover turns how I always have, if a game has 2.5 hrs left and Im getting ready for bed I will cover it, if a clanmate says he is gone 3 days I will cover it. I will state in chat I am covering like I do for 80% of covers but if I forget on a rare occasion, it happens. And if i get banned then fine Im done with this site cause I deal with enough stupid laws in real life I dont need stupid laws on some game website.

If someone really is covering a majority of all clan members games as someone else mentioned, then punish that person and that clan. Dont make all of us suffer through some BS 1 hr rule and you have to state when, why and how long you are covering a turn because of some douche on the site is abusing the generic covering rules.

JustCallMeStupid wrote:This is so stupid. I guess I would have to know what abuse is, I have maybe 3 or 4 times been able to take a turn within the first 18 hours but I wasnt sure on the move, but then I had to leave with only 6 hours remaining so I will text a clanmate what I was planning and to take the turn since I wont be back in 6 hours (maybe this is abuse to a select few anal retentives).

I must be one of the anal retentives, because I'm 100% sure that that is breaking the rules, i.e., abuse.

Apart from it being against the rules I find it morally wrong and cheating.

Lx

Lindax wrote:

JustCallMeStupid wrote:This is so stupid. I guess I would have to know what abuse is, I have maybe 3 or 4 times been able to take a turn within the first 18 hours but I wasnt sure on the move, but then I had to leave with only 6 hours remaining so I will text a clanmate what I was planning and to take the turn since I wont be back in 6 hours (maybe this is abuse to a select few anal retentives).

I must be one of the anal retentives, because I'm 100% sure that that is breaking the rules, i.e., abuse.

Apart from it being against the rules I find it morally wrong and cheating.

Lx

it's a TEAM GAME. clan game's interest is the ability to coordinate between all players involved an plan with drops attacks and forts agreeing with one another. it's not about playing your first thought that your teammates might not agree on with 23 hours left (well at least not if you aspire to do your best). I do think that it's not normal if it happens on a regular basis, but if it happens once in a while because of unplanned reasons, you are not going to let the turn be missed. How is having your teammate's back in case of unplanned absence cheating? You are not even in a clan, so how are problems between clans of your concern? you play a vast majority of standard games. Someone sitting a turn for another player in a standard game would be cheating 100%, but for his team? there are no conflicts of interests.

betiko wrote:

Lindax wrote:

JustCallMeStupid wrote:This is so stupid. I guess I would have to know what abuse is, I have maybe 3 or 4 times been able to take a turn within the first 18 hours but I wasnt sure on the move, but then I had to leave with only 6 hours remaining so I will text a clanmate what I was planning and to take the turn since I wont be back in 6 hours (maybe this is abuse to a select few anal retentives).

I must be one of the anal retentives, because I'm 100% sure that that is breaking the rules, i.e., abuse.

Apart from it being against the rules I find it morally wrong and cheating.

Lx

it's a TEAM GAME. clan game's interest is the ability to coordinate between all players involved an plan with drops attacks and forts agreeing with one another. it's not about playing your first thought that your teammates might not agree on with 23 hours left (well at least not if you aspire to do your best). I do think that it's not normal if it happens on a regular basis, but if it happens once in a while because of unplanned reasons, you are not going to let the turn be missed. How is having your teammate's back in case of unplanned absence cheating? You are not even in a clan, so how are problems between clans of your concern? you play a vast majority of standard games. Someone sitting a turn for another player in a standard game would be cheating 100%, but for his team? there are no conflicts of interests.

And how is what I think your concern?

I have been in 2 clans for most of my time on CC, but that has nothing to do with this. The rule Stupid broke is a site rule that exists for a long time already. Letting somebody else take your turn "because you're not sure how to play it" is cheating.

I don't care if it's a clan game or not and if it happens once, twice or 10 times, it's cheating. And cheating is against the rules, disgusting, distasteful, AND gives honest players a disadvantage.

If we wouldn't have this wide-spread cheating in the clan world, I may still have been interested in being part of it.

Lx

I agree that if no one gives you feedback or you know that you'll be sleeping by then well you have no other choice than taking it the way you intend to, it's your teammate's fault. But if something unplanned happens, then someone else playing a turn that is going to be missed is nothing even close to cheating. I think it is very poor sportsmanship to blame an opposing team for not letting a turn to be missed. That is the kind of mentallity that I find disgusting and distatesful.

Lindax: I think, you are completely misreading Stus statement. He is not saying, that he didn´t know, what to do with a turn & so decided to leave it for someone else to take for him.

He is talking about a situation, where he is looking at a turn with several possible options, and then he says to himself: "Hmpf, I have plenty of time left, I´ll think about it for a while & take another look later." Maybe he also leaves some notes in Chat for his team with his first ideas for the turn. Only then something comes up in RL, his planned schedule is turned upside down, and he finds, that suddenly he does not have the time he was expecting to have. He has to leave in a hurry & so he messages a team-mate to please cover for him. Please note also, that Stu says, this kind of thing has happened to him 3-4 times in his entire time on CC.

What is so bloody terrible about this ? How is this abuse & cheating ? There is no rule, that says, you must take your turn as soon as you can. And a RL emergency can happen, when you have turns waiting on CC, that - in hindsight - you could have taken yourself, when you first looked at the game. Only it is the nature of the beast, that emergencies come unannounced, and you didn´t know. You thought, you had plenty of time to take a second look, think about it some more, wait for feedback from your team and then take the turn yourself.

The beauty of team games is to communicate & not just do, what you think. To listen to the ideas of your team-mates, discuss different options, plan your common strategy. So yeah, this results in some turns being waited out. To give team-mates a chance to look at the game too & give some input. Maybe those team-mates are on different time zones too, and so you have to wait a bit longer til they are actually up & around.

I mean, what is it, that you want ? Force everybody to then miss all their turns in situations like this ? How is that making CC a better place ? And what does all of this have to do with abuse or unfair advantages, when the other team has the right to do the very same thing & sit turns in emergency too ?