Game Sitting Feature

[Leehar]

This hasn't garnered much debate in CDF, so thought I'd open the floor for any comments, before taking this update forward to develop and test before implementation.
Unfortunately the beta testing did stall because of concerns that the Clan community may be resistant to change, especially with some of the more radical features (no emergency/long-term sitting).
So hopefully we can have a concerted cohesive approach from the clan community, but even if the discussion remains divisive, at least everyone is forewarned to expect any changes.

Released to Beta.

• Feature must be enabled. Go to Game Settings and set 'Enable Game Sitting' to Yes
• Game Sitting Tab will appear on My Games
• Invites Sitters -> sends private message with Approve/Decline
• Can have up to 3 active sitters and can sit for up to 3 players
• Can schedule sitters for the future and for up to 7 days at a time
• When sitting the tab alerts you to active games for players you are sitting
• Starting a game sitting session for a player take you a 'Game Stadium' of their valid games for you to sit by clicking 'Visit' on each
• Games will show up in your sitter tab when they are ready to play
• Game Log indicates a Sitter is player
• If a Sitter uses game Chat they are identified in the chat line
• There are restrictions on sitting:
  
  • Both players must be premium
  • Sitters must have minimum games of 10
  • Sitters must have played in last 10 days
  • You cannot sit for games you are in unless it is a team game and you are on the same team as your sittee
  • Cannot sit in speed games
  • Cannot sit in Bot games
  • Cannot take a sitting turn for first 6 hours

Suggested Amendments
Removal of Freemium restriction. (either sitter/sittee?)
Some form of Emergency sitting (We all have fond memories from the extension from 1 to 2 hours, nevermind the exceptions for middle of the night absences)
Joining Clan/Tournament Games while only temporarily away
Long-term sitting (>14 days etc)
Long-term Speed Games/Tournaments (Excess of a few hours?)
[/quote]

I don't think any of us can deny that a sitting feature is much-needed, but a lot of the debate revolves around two perspectives:
1. No turn should ever be missed.
2. Your opponent should play his own turn.

Where do we think is a fair middle-ground? Ensure a system assists in minimising missed turns to avoid ruining the integrity of the game?
So, ensure a reliable mechanism to avoid missed turns, vs ensuring you have reliable members that don't miss turns (fix the root, not the branch)

So, the platform is opened, please don't give me cause to close it

[Donelladan]

Sitters must have minimum games of 10

I do not understand why this is enforced. This should be removed imo. It make no sense to me.
Do you think there is people that keep a low count game so that they can sit their whole clan?

I don't think any of us can deny that a sitting feature is much-needed, but a lot of the debate revolves around two perspectives:
1. No turn should ever be missed.
2. Your opponent should play his own turn.

I think abuse are rare and we should not have many restriction on the stting.
If the sitting feature is added, there is this
"Game Log indicates a Sitter is player"
Therefore it will be easy to check if someone is abusing it. Even without the game log indicating a sitter is player people have been caught for abusing sitting. Now it would be easier.
Trust us not to abuse, and trust us to check if someone is abusing it. No need to make so many restrictions.
Restrictions will be annoying for the 99% of players that are honest, to relatively annoy the 1% cheater.


I think the game sitting feature should make you choose 3 sitters. And then can sit for you whenever it is needed, without having to make any schedule for absence.

There are restrictions on sitting:

Both players must be premium -> why not. It is another advantage for premium.
Sitters must have minimum games of 10 -> Reduce it to 4.
Sitters must have played in last 10 days -> Redudant with the previous one, and you only have to play 1 speed to overcome it. Useless.
You cannot sit for games you are in unless it is a team game and you are on the same team as your sittee -> Normal
Cannot sit in speed games -> I'd like it to be allow to sit for speed game but not a major problem.
Cannot sit in Bot games -> doesn't matter
Cannot take a sitting turn for first 6 hours -> good restriction.

[Shannon Apple]

My honest opinion on this as a member is that is kinda takes away our credit as honest players. Abuse rarely happens and when it does, the people involved get punished severely. The punishment in such cases is deserved. Why do we need to restrict everyone so harshly? Is it because everyone is a potential cheater?

This needs to be relaxed a lot because often times one sitter just cannot take all of the turns due to time, so I am in agreement with Don on that.

The main reason I would love to see some sort of sitter thing in place is for the moderators. KoRT has always had a few of them, and I guess I see how difficult it is sometimes to have an available sitter if 3 of them are away at the same time. If there was a system in place where a sitter could ONLY access the game and not the forums, inbox or any other features, that would be ideal for them. Like... putting your account into sitter mode requires a secondary pw and can only be deactivated by you on return. As a member, I have sat for a mod in the past who had themselves removed so that a non-mod could take their turns. It wouldn't be necessary with the right system in place.

What if a player has something serious happen in their real life, and the last thing they think about is their CC turns? People in their clan notice they have not logged in and some turns already missed, more about to miss... someone takes their turns for them while they wait to find out what is going on. Things like this have happened. I think the desire to combat the very possibility of cheating is really damaging to the person who may genuinely need the help of their friends because of something serious going on at home.

[Arama86n]

My honest opinion on this as a member is that is kinda takes away our credit as honest players. Abuse rarely happens and when it does, the people involved get punished severely. The punishment in such cases is deserved. Why do we need to restrict everyone so harshly? Is it because everyone is a potential cheater?

Don't agree with you here. Transparency can only be a good thing. No need to second guess. This is one of the aspects I like most about it.
Both our clans have been on the receiving end of controversy and shit-stirring in regards to this. Full sitting transparency can only be a step towards stamping out any such rumors. As you say we are honest players with nothing to hide. So let's put it all in the open and not leave any room for speculation.

The main reason I would love to see some sort of sitter thing in place is for the moderators. KoRT has always had a few of them, and I guess I see how difficult it is sometimes to have an available sitter if 3 of them are away at the same time. If there was a system in place where a sitter could ONLY access the game and not the forums, inbox or any other features, that would be ideal for them. Like... putting your account into sitter mode requires a secondary pw and can only be deactivated by you on return. As a member, I have sat for a mod in the past who had themselves removed so that a non-mod could take their turns. It wouldn't be necessary with the right system in place.

In sympathy with other clans such as KoRT that have more moderators, I support this 100%. Being a moderator shouldn't be a disadvantage in any way, nor should any clan be put at a disadvantage for having these upstanding members of the community within their ranks. Get it done gents in red.


* Feature must be enabled. Go to Game Settings and set 'Enable Game Sitting' to Yes <-- Good.
* Can have up to 3 active sitters and can sit for up to 3 players <-- reasonable, might need to be looked at though.
*Can schedule sitters for the future and for up to 7 days at a time <-- Might not be enough, but reasonably reasonable
* Games will show up in your sitter tab when they are ready to play <-- sounds convenient.
* Game Log indicates a Sitter is player <---
* If a Sitter uses game Chat they are identified in the chat line <-- excellent.
There are restrictions on sitting:
Both players must be premium <-- Perhaps not the person being sat. that's uncalled for.
Sitters must have minimum games of 10 <--- I can't be bothered writing three paragraphs to illustrate the stupidity of this one.
Sitters must have played in last 10 days <-- reasonable.
You cannot sit for games you are in unless it is a team game and you are on the same team as your sittee <-- of course.
Cannot sit in speed games <-- reasonable.
Cannot take a sitting turn for first 6 hours <--

[Foxglove]

[*]Games will show up in your sitter tab when they are ready to play

I would like to see games always show up in the sitter tab, so that you can keep track of when your opponents and/or teammates are taking turns.

[*]Game Log indicates a Sitter is player

This is the most important thing!!! Yay.

[*]There are restrictions on sitting:
[*]Both players must be premium
[*]Sitters must have minimum games of 10

I think this means 10 games *played* right, not 10 active games?

[*]Cannot take a sitting turn for first 6 hours

I don't see the need for this one.

Suggested Amendments
Removal of Freemium restriction. (either sitter/sittee?)

Why? More perks for premium members is a good thing.

Some form of Emergency sitting (We all have fond memories from the extension from 1 to 2 hours, nevermind the exceptions for middle of the night absences)

Yes.

Joining Clan/Tournament Games while only temporarily away
Long-term sitting (>14 days etc)

Yes!

I don't think any of us can deny that a sitting feature is much-needed, but a lot of the debate revolves around two perspectives:
1. No turn should ever be missed.
2. Your opponent should play his own turn.

His or her turn. Their own turn, if you will, is a far superior phrase. I'm like a broken record on this subject.

Where do we think is a fair middle-ground? Ensure a system assists in minimizing missed turns to avoid ruining the integrity of the game?
So, ensure a reliable mechanism to avoid missed turns, vs ensuring you have reliable members that don't miss turns (fix the root, not the branch)

Unless a person already considers the integrity of the game to be ruined, implementing a sitting feature will only bolster the game's integrity, by making sitting consistent and transparent.

It's hard to remain reliable day after day month after month and year after year. Though some of us do manage it. Clan members already, for the most part, do their best to make sure that teammates don't miss turns. My personal opinion would be that we should be allowed to set 1-3 permanent account sitters. This might seem too permissive to some - but it would *already* be better than our current system (sharing passwords) which is far less transparent. If people abuse the permanent sitter functionality, let it be dealt with in C&A.

I can't wait until we have sitting functionality, but I hope it isn't released with too many restrictive rules.

[Shannon Apple]

Don't agree with you here. Transparency can only be a good thing. No need to second guess. This is one of the aspects I like most about it.
Both our clans have been on the receiving end of controversy and shit-stirring in regards to this. Full sitting transparency can only be a step towards stamping out any such rumors. As you say we are honest players with nothing to hide. So let's put it all in the open and not leave any room for speculation.

I haven't been around CC when the worst of this took place really. People can be mean to each other, it happens, but from my experience, most people on CC are cool. I might have a better view of people on CC as a whole having not witnessed these historic events. There'll always be a few who take things to another level. Sure, on the odd occasion after joining the clan I've heard from people "Josko sits for you all anyway" and I am like "Really, cuz the guy has never sat for me. Ever." You sorta have to see the funny side and not take stuff like that to heart, even if you're like "grrrrr" at the time. =)

Nothing wrong with transparency, like... the log indicating who exactly is playing, this can only be good... but I am worried about the whole emergency sitting thing because as I have said, things happen. I would hate to see the ability to help friends out in a crisis taken away. That is the one thing I would personally campaign for. To prevent this would be like punishing every honest player for the few muppets.

Not sure if "permanent" sitter is a good thing, but maybe you can change after 6 months (can't abuse such a time limit), or something, if you want to. If you change clans, your sitter quits CC/takes extended break, you fall out with someone on your sitter list, or whatever the case may be... you know the way things can go, are you going to have to submit e-tickets to have it changed? Time restriction might be better all around?

[WPBRJ]

not sure if i read this right but i dint see any limitation on how many a individual can sit for

it says a player can have up to 3 sitters for his account well what about one player that sits for his whole clan is that allowed?

i think there should be a max number a individual should be allowed to sit for

[GoranZ]

Proposed sitting feature is by any means worst possible solution for sitting... And the most complicated for implementation...

Simple solution:
Add supervision password(additional field), who ever knows it can supervise(if it is set). But only 1 supervisor can be logged in in any given moment.
When a player is supervised other players will read that in the game log once he start the turn, and if he wishes to write something on the game chat others will be also notified that it is supervision by other player.

Thats it, no other limitations, and simple for implementation. Why making something complicated when you can make it simple?

[IcePack]

not sure if i read this right but i dint see any limitation on how many a individual can sit for

it says a player can have up to 3 sitters for his account well what about one player that sits for his whole clan is that allowed?

i think there should be a max number a individual should be allowed to sit for

I tend to disagree on this, players don't want to give passwords to people they don't trust.
If I am "maxed" out for people I can cover, it would force them to select someone they aren't comfortable with possibly. People should be in full control and not be restricted as to who can cover their account.
Also, there are other considerations to sitter selection. Game type preference (some people like complicated maps which only so many people might be able to cover) or time zone dofferences, setting preferences etc.
If it's getting abused

[codierose]

firstly thanks for the heads up and discussing possible changes
i agree a sitting feature is badly needed

Feature must be enabled. Go to Game Settings and set 'Enable Game Sitting' to Yes
this is cool but can it not be intergrated as part of the game sitting tab so its all kept in one location
Game Sitting Tab will appear on My Games
this is cool
Invites Sitters -> sends private message with Approve/Decline
this is cool but can this be part of game sitting tab when you hover mouse over invite sitters a drop down shown all clan members set default no you choose your three to yes they get private message with Approve/Decline
Can have up to 3 active sitters and can sit for up to 3 players
no objections here
Can schedule sitters for the future and for up to 7 days at a time
14 sounds better also can be added to game sitting tab vacation drop down 1 to 14 ? resets after said days selected
When sitting the tab alerts you to active games for players you are sitting
awesome
Starting a game sitting session for a player take you a 'Game Stadium' of their valid games for you to sit by clicking 'Visit' on each
'Game Stadium' are you refering to the layout as in clan pages if so awesome. whom ever came up with this idea is a CC genius
Games will show up in your sitter tab when they are ready to play
cool could there also be an option for a pm ?
Game Log indicates a Sitter is player
cool
If a Sitter uses game Chat they are identified in the chat line
cool
There are restrictions on sitting:
Both players must be premium
cant see why what difference does it make
Sitters must have minimum games of 10
not sure what you mean by this can you explain
Sitters must have played in last 10 days
cool no objections shows if there active a guess
You cannot sit for games you are in unless it is a team game and you are on the same team as your sittee
cool
Cannot sit in speed games
cool
Cannot sit in Bot games
lol
Cannot take a sitting turn for first 6 hours
cool cant see that being an issue but why 6 hours ?

Suggested Amendments
Removal of Freemium restriction. (either sitter/sittee?)
cool
Some form of Emergency sitting (We all have fond memories from the extension from 1 to 2 hours, nevermind the exceptions for middle of the night absences)
can GoranZ's suggestion of 1 supervisor can be logged in in any given moment work with this. one nominated from each clan as supervisor
Joining Clan/Tournament Games while only temporarily away
cool
Long-term sitting (>14 days etc)
cool
Long-term Speed Games/Tournaments (Excess of a few hours?)
cool i like it i have used a sitter for long term speed games myself

P.S i hope they way the clan world has changed filters to the rest of the site far more professionally done well done CDs

[jj3044]

I'm sure the comments will keep coming but "Cannot take a sitting turn for first 6 hours" would be a problem for me. During the week I play CC during a ~4 hour window in the evenings, every evening, from about 6pm-10 or 11pm. This means that if I am sitting for someone and a turn comes up within an hour or two of me going online, I will miss the turn, as I will see it is due, but I won't be able to take it.

[nicestash]

I don't know if it's possible, but it'd be nice to have an emergency sitter which would activate account sitting mode for them if any turns got below 1 or 2 hours. Obviously this would need to overlook the 6 hour sitting turn rule.

[JJ41375]

I agree with everybody that some form of sitting is needed. If nothing else to make it a little easier to remember to take their turns. Even if I am sitting for somebody I usually have to look up his/her password....I have enough trouble remembering all my passwords for various things never mind somebody Else's. This just makes sitting a little bit easier.

As far as restrictions go, a good point was brought up. Do you mean the sitter must have 10 active games (like currently playing)? That does some a lot....we all know players who try to focus on 5 or less games at a time (usually clan games). Or is it they have played 10 games (I think that might be a better restriction)?

I also think that the sitter should be premium, but the absent person could be a freemium.

Otherwise I think everything else is a great idea.

[Armandolas]

This will definitly be a big help for me and my clan, if we now barely miss a turn, with this, our chances to miss one are almost 0
Im only concerned about emergency sitting. Thats usually the biggest trouble about missed turns.
Im having doubts as well, weather this new sitting feature will really prevent any kind of abuse or just legitimate an abuse

[catnipdreams]

I would love to have a very simple system:

(1) a separate "sitters" password, that I could give out to as many people as I wish to, who can then at any time, log into my account, but who can only access my games.

(2) any time someone is logged in to my account via the sitter password, and takes a turn or leaves game chat, that person will be identified properly as a sitter, including their own CC username.

This gives total transparency as to who is actually leaving chat, and taking turns. Then we all collectively can set standards of allowable sitting, which could change over time, or could vary by tournament/war. Setting a bunch of limits/restrictions into the sitting code itself will make updates very difficult; why go there? Since who is sitting, and when, and how often, will be clearly shown in each game, any abuses can be also clearly seen, and dealt with appropriately.

Please, let's keep this as simple as possible. Shine a light on who is sitting, and let what constitutes abuse be determined by the situation, and by the community.

I can likely find a situation where each of the restrictions mentioned would be considered unfair by most reasonable people. Some games can last for months - suppose I have a family emergency and need to take two months off in the middle of a four month long game? What, I have to deadbeat? Suppose I lose power, and there is no phone service, no internet service, no way for me to do anything with my CC account. A clanmate notices one of my games has a low clock. But my designated sitters were all off-line and unreachable. It's a critical turn in an important clan game. If I could take the turn, of course I would, but I can't. Is it really reasonable to mess up the game for my "innocent" teammates, as well as myself, due to a power failure? Suppose a clanmate is freemium - it seems unreasonable to restrict sitting for/by that clanmate. And so on - exception after exception after exception.

Trying to think of all these possible situations, and allowing for them in some way via game code, seems impossible. Something will get missed, or frequent changes will be needed - a ridiculous headache, that is totally unneccessary. The flip side, being overly restrictive, is unfair to honest players who have some unexpected situation arise.

Thank you for bringing this up for discussion!

[L M S]

Get rid of deferred troops, while you're at it.

[hopalong]

shouldnt upgrades be in the interest of the user? how does such a feature benefit me?

i am able to notify sitters when i am going for a vacation, and am able to rely on sitters when they see my time running low, for whatever unexpected reason. and even with these 'back-up' plans, i might still miss an occasional turn ... and that is fine.

if this feature is to reduce cheaters/abusers, simplify it. some folks have suggested a 'second sitter password' function that would automatically notify folks when someone other than the account holder takes a turn. that works for me real good.

but if you really want to add value to me as the user via a sitter function, please incorporate a series of dexterity tests that would evaluate the sobriety of my sitter, so that they meet the minimal threshold of intoxication that i usually take my turns on.

[jj3044]

I would love to have a very simple system:

(1) a separate "sitters" password, that I could give out to as many people as I wish to, who can then at any time, log into my account, but who can only access my games.

(2) any time someone is logged in to my account via the sitter password, and takes a turn or leaves game chat, that person will be identified properly as a sitter, including their own CC username.

This gives total transparency as to who is actually leaving chat, and taking turns. Then we all collectively can set standards of allowable sitting, which could change over time, or could vary by tournament/war. Setting a bunch of limits/restrictions into the sitting code itself will make updates very difficult; why go there? Since who is sitting, and when, and how often, will be clearly shown in each game, any abuses can be also clearly seen, and dealt with appropriately.

Please, let's keep this as simple as possible. Shine a light on who is sitting, and let what constitutes abuse be determined by the situation, and by the community.

I can likely find a situation where each of the restrictions mentioned would be considered unfair by most reasonable people. Some games can last for months - suppose I have a family emergency and need to take two months off in the middle of a four month long game? What, I have to deadbeat? Suppose I lose power, and there is no phone service, no internet service, no way for me to do anything with my CC account. A clanmate notices one of my games has a low clock. But my designated sitters were all off-line and unreachable. It's a critical turn in an important clan game. If I could take the turn, of course I would, but I can't. Is it really reasonable to mess up the game for my "innocent" teammates, as well as myself, due to a power failure? Suppose a clanmate is freemium - it seems unreasonable to restrict sitting for/by that clanmate. And so on - exception after exception after exception.

Trying to think of all these possible situations, and allowing for them in some way via game code, seems impossible. Something will get missed, or frequent changes will be needed - a ridiculous headache, that is totally unneccessary. The flip side, being overly restrictive, is unfair to honest players who have some unexpected situation arise.

Thank you for bringing this up for discussion!

Fantastic post Cat, I agree 100%. Make it as simple as possible, and get to the root of the problem. No need to over complicate things!

[jghost7]

I would love to have a very simple system:

(1) a separate "sitters" password, that I could give out to as many people as I wish to, who can then at any time, log into my account, but who can only access my games.

(2) any time someone is logged in to my account via the sitter password, and takes a turn or leaves game chat, that person will be identified properly as a sitter, including their own CC username.

This gives total transparency as to who is actually leaving chat, and taking turns. Then we all collectively can set standards of allowable sitting, which could change over time, or could vary by tournament/war. Setting a bunch of limits/restrictions into the sitting code itself will make updates very difficult; why go there? Since who is sitting, and when, and how often, will be clearly shown in each game, any abuses can be also clearly seen, and dealt with appropriately.

Please, let's keep this as simple as possible. Shine a light on who is sitting, and let what constitutes abuse be determined by the situation, and by the community.

I can likely find a situation where each of the restrictions mentioned would be considered unfair by most reasonable people. Some games can last for months - suppose I have a family emergency and need to take two months off in the middle of a four month long game? What, I have to deadbeat? Suppose I lose power, and there is no phone service, no internet service, no way for me to do anything with my CC account. A clanmate notices one of my games has a low clock. But my designated sitters were all off-line and unreachable. It's a critical turn in an important clan game. If I could take the turn, of course I would, but I can't. Is it really reasonable to mess up the game for my "innocent" teammates, as well as myself, due to a power failure? Suppose a clanmate is freemium - it seems unreasonable to restrict sitting for/by that clanmate. And so on - exception after exception after exception.

Trying to think of all these possible situations, and allowing for them in some way via game code, seems impossible. Something will get missed, or frequent changes will be needed - a ridiculous headache, that is totally unneccessary. The flip side, being overly restrictive, is unfair to honest players who have some unexpected situation arise.

Thank you for bringing this up for discussion!

Fantastic post Cat, I agree 100%. Make it as simple as possible, and get to the root of the problem. No need to over complicate things!

Yeah, I like this. It follows the KISS rule and serves the purpose well.

Thanks,

J

[GoranZ]

I just noticed this(although I posted previously)

Alpha Phase wrote:
Released to Beta.

Does that mean that this is already under final implementation?

If it is under final development at least name it properly as Game Shitting Feature, since its not Game Sitting as it is promoted.

[angola]

It reached the beta stage, but then it was tabled.

[IcePack]

It reached the beta stage, but then it was tabled.

This. Leehar is now heading the clan opinion discussion which is why we are all here.

[Vid_FISO]

This is being discussed only in Clans when it effects everyone that has at least one "friend" playing CC?

On the clan side of things all that matters to me as a clan leader is that the moves get played rather than have games/ wars lost due to someone either going on holiday without mentioning it or simply disappearing with no word.

As a tourney player that plays team games, the same goes, I don't want to lose games and possible tourney wins for the same reasons.

If I'm sitting a clan/team mate then I sit whatever games need sitting whether I'm comfortable with maps or settings or not.

For the life of me I do not understand why speed games would need sitting, surely this can only happen under "emergency" conditions and to me it should be tough shit, or only the partner(s) in team games should be allowed to sit, I'd need a bloody good argument from someone to accept that individual games should be allowed to be sat.

Something has been proposed behind closed doors from someone with a narrow perspective, it's been followed up by someone else with a similar perspective and something has been alpha tested, is now in beta and only now you're asking for opinions????

One rule for some subscribers and another for others? Some will know about it and others won't? If you want to deal with clan sitting then look at it properly, clans do things their way, 2/3/4 friends will do it theirs and the bulk of the players on CC get nothing due to not having clan mates or friends to cover their absences.

[IcePack]

This is being discussed only in Clans when it effects everyone that has at least one "friend" playing CC?

Something has been proposed behind closed doors from someone with a narrow perspective, it's been followed up by someone else with a similar perspective and something has been alpha tested, is now in beta and only now you're asking for opinions????

This was discussed for a long time and had been informally and formally suggested for years. It's had open commentary, not just clans.

Wasn't proposed behind closed doors, was openly discussed, and went to CDF and now seeking open clan opinions as there were some concerns. So in desiring to take in clan concerns and opinions, it's been opened back for further discussion before final version is made and going through testing.

[Shannon Apple]

I would love to have a very simple system:

(1) a separate "sitters" password, that I could give out to as many people as I wish to, who can then at any time, log into my account, but who can only access my games.

(2) any time someone is logged in to my account via the sitter password, and takes a turn or leaves game chat, that person will be identified properly as a sitter, including their own CC username.

This gives total transparency as to who is actually leaving chat, and taking turns. Then we all collectively can set standards of allowable sitting, which could change over time, or could vary by tournament/war. Setting a bunch of limits/restrictions into the sitting code itself will make updates very difficult; why go there? Since who is sitting, and when, and how often, will be clearly shown in each game, any abuses can be also clearly seen, and dealt with appropriately.

Please, let's keep this as simple as possible. Shine a light on who is sitting, and let what constitutes abuse be determined by the situation, and by the community.

I can likely find a situation where each of the restrictions mentioned would be considered unfair by most reasonable people. Some games can last for months - suppose I have a family emergency and need to take two months off in the middle of a four month long game? What, I have to deadbeat? Suppose I lose power, and there is no phone service, no internet service, no way for me to do anything with my CC account. A clanmate notices one of my games has a low clock. But my designated sitters were all off-line and unreachable. It's a critical turn in an important clan game. If I could take the turn, of course I would, but I can't. Is it really reasonable to mess up the game for my "innocent" teammates, as well as myself, due to a power failure? Suppose a clanmate is freemium - it seems unreasonable to restrict sitting for/by that clanmate. And so on - exception after exception after exception.

Trying to think of all these possible situations, and allowing for them in some way via game code, seems impossible. Something will get missed, or frequent changes will be needed - a ridiculous headache, that is totally unneccessary. The flip side, being overly restrictive, is unfair to honest players who have some unexpected situation arise.

Thank you for bringing this up for discussion!

THIS!