account sitting issues..new rule? <updated - see 1st post>

[detlef]

So, only one account per IP, and one IP per account? I can take my turns from home, and nowhere else?

Move on Tim, he's not worth the hassle. It's a stupid idea that will never be put into place. Far too many people log in both at work at home and almost none of us are saddled with JR's level of paranoia. Besides, if you keep quoting him, it undoes the fact that I have him on ignore.

[Timminz]

So, only one account per IP, and one IP per account? I can take my turns from home, and nowhere else?

Move on Tim, he's not worth the hassle. It's a stupid idea that will never be put into place. Far too many people log in both at work at home and almost none of us are saddled with JR's level of paranoia. Besides, if you keep quoting him, it undoes the fact that I have him on ignore.

Good points. I'm just having trouble wrapping my head around his "ideas". I'll stop feeding the troll now, so we can get back to relevant discussion.

[jiminski]

What we need to decide: Is the updated rule basically ok?

-Does it give more protection and freedom of choice for those who are anti babysitting by team-mates? - yes, i think so! (Rocket should be very happy as he can now just say no!) Coupled with the fact that CC will catch you if you do not declare, it should work well and offers fewer loopholes for people to wriggle through.

-Does the amended rule offer flexibility to those who have few options for babysitters and often require the help of their Team-mate? yes, most people will just say "yes" at the start of a game "no problem, sure you can play for your partner if they are away" ("Y" for short ) .... most people are reasonable and quite understanding of the demands of life outside the game.

People will find out quickly who oblige or not and temper their oppositional preferences accordingly.
Likewise, if people gain a bad name (i would say feedback will be a good tool for this too) as perpetually overusing/abusing a team babysitter they will find less opposition.




I honestly have no problem with asking if i may, in the event of it proving necessary, play for a team-mate. most people say 'gl' at the start! i think they can say 'Y' too?

[dividedbyzero]

your off because you dont have to use that public computer to move. you have 24 hours to use the computer the account is assigned to.

Hrm. I use my laptop at home to play my turns...and I'm usually on until about midnight some nights. Then, 5 or 6 days a week, I take that same laptop to work but end up with a different IP - and that's only usually about 8 hours later. If I go to another location (we have 4 total), I could end up with yet a different IP. So even though I'm on the same computer 99% of the time, I can have several different IPs in one day.

I think we can consider this a non-issue and take it back on topic. What say ?

[Timminz]

I think we can consider this a non-issue and take it back on topic. What say ?

I'm pretty sure we have already

[SkywardShadow]

My goodness, I read through this whole thing.

I like the updated rule quite a bit.

Up to this point, I wasn't comfortable with teammates taking each other's turns. Yet, as someone who wastes too much of his life playing actual tabletop strategy games, I know I would not have a problem with it if playing in person. I can only assume that the difference is psychological, lending weight to the perceived statement. I cannot see my opponents faces, therefore, you must be plotting against me in dastardly ways! Of course, in a real-life face-to-face tournament, babysitting would be an extreme no-no, as no matter how coordinated your strategies, you are two separate individuals, and must make your own decisions, and win based on your own definite merits. Due to our scoring and ranking system, we are in a form of tournament, and I am thankful that babysitting is allowed at all.

The above really only applies to sequential, as I don't enjoy freestyle games.

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

[quote="Twill"]Rocket, that's fine, just don't ever ask someone in one of your games to sit for you
quote]

deal

now can we block everyone from being able to make moves for other accounts?

[lancehoch]

now can we block everyone from being able to make moves for other accounts?

No, because the way that you want to run the site would have most of the people on here banned. I am a college student, as such I use the school's internet for 8 months out of the year. As per your previous statement where each user can only access CC from one IP, I would not be able to play games from May through August. This also does not take into account when the ethernet port in my dorm room does not work and I need to access CC using wireless. This uses an entirely separate IP address, as well as a different MAC address. Clearly someone has no idea what they are talking about here and keeps coming up with asinine suggestions just because they feel like their shit does not stink like the rest of us. Face it Johnny, you are just another dipshit sitting behind the keyboard who clearly does not have a life. And what is a "professional conquer club player" anyway? Do you make money off of the site? Do you not have another job? If that is the case, then clearly you need to get outside, oh wait, you cant because then you would be breaking your own stupid rule of not using two different IP addresses, or you would do the most heinous thing in the world and miss a turn on your precious CC. Get a life and stop trolling.

[Timminz]

now can we block everyone from being able to make moves for other accounts?

No, because the way that you want to run the site would have most of the people on here banned. I am a college student, as such I use the school's internet for 8 months out of the year. As per your previous statement where each user can only access CC from one IP, I would not be able to play games from May through August. This also does not take into account when the ethernet port in my dorm room does not work and I need to access CC using wireless. This uses an entirely separate IP address, as well as a different MAC address. Clearly someone has no idea what they are talking about here and keeps coming up with asinine suggestions just because they feel like their shit does not stink like the rest of us. Face it Johnny, you are just another dipshit sitting behind the keyboard who clearly does not have a life. And what is a "professional conquer club player" anyway? Do you make money off of the site? Do you not have another job? If that is the case, then clearly you need to get outside, oh wait, you cant because then you would be breaking your own stupid rule of not using two different IP addresses, or you would do the most heinous thing in the world and miss a turn on your precious CC. Get a life and stop trolling.

Don't worry about JR, he's just a troll.

[firstholliday]

Don't worry about JR, he's just a troll.


+ he isn't much of a riskplayer also... i was looking for a good name for jr and troll is good but i like Muppet better.

Back to topic;

......................

[DiM]

Don't worry about JR, he's just a troll.


+ he isn't much of a riskplayer also... i was looking for a good name for jr and troll is good but i like Muppet better.

Back to topic;

......................

muppet sounds good. i like it.

anyway 1account = 1 ip is stupid.

even if you take all your turns from home and no other place you might still have tons of ips. remember some people have dynamic ips set by the provider.

[WOTE]

Maybe the Team Games should have teams vs teams instead of random players jumping in... I can see how some players will join and then just do nothing and lose the game. So if they are using a second account they can give there their account and advantage. Real teams have more structure, and can trust there team mates a lot better and get to know each others tactics. you could have different leagues as well so a player could join more than one team. like Terminator, Assassin, Doubles, Triples, Quadruples, or the Fog of war league.

[Twill]

Don't worry, 1 IP = 1 player isn't ever going to happen. We do want to stay in business you know...

NS, I understand the frustration at having to ask every time and that it's going to be a pain in the ass for tournaments, but the onus must be on the people who want the benefit of the doubt to ask for it.
That being said you don't need to ask permission to have a sitter. You only need to ask permission to have a sitter if the person who you want to sit is already in that game.
If you don't want to ask at the start of a game, just find a 3rd party sitter. If, however, you are placing yourself in a situation which has been used for abuse by others, I think it's fair and respectful to ask permission from your opponents if it is ok.
As for "this tournament requires you to allow team mates to babysit without question": I'd veto that one for the same reason I'd say no to Timminz's suggestion or saying that you can't run a tournament that involves secret alliances. Forcing people into a situation which could be dubious or abusive is not a good thing.
If you want to discuss the tournament specific implications of this, drop me a PM or IM so we can hammer them out and I can understand the problems, then bring them back here to the table.

As for Timm's suggestion again, the shopowner comment is actually fairly accurate. 99% of players here should reasonably be able to expect that they are playing the person who owns the account and not someone else. As such, if there is any derivation from that norm, it it should be the responsibility of the people deviating from it.

To say that the majority of people here EXPECT to be playing against sitters is a gross misunderstanding me thinks


FirstHolliday, don't troll people.


Now, let me defer back to Jim, who asked some very good and pointed questions with the aim of keeping this discussion moving forward rather than just saying "change sucks"

What we need to decide: Is the updated rule basically ok?

-Does it give more protection and freedom of choice for those who are anti babysitting by team-mates? - yes, i think so! (Rocket should be very happy as he can now just say no!) Coupled with the fact that CC will catch you if you do not declare, it should work well and offers fewer loopholes for people to wriggle through.

-Does the amended rule offer flexibility to those who have few options for babysitters and often require the help of their Team-mate? yes, most people will just say "yes" at the start of a game "no problem, sure you can play for your partner if they are away" ("Y" for short ) .... most people are reasonable and quite understanding of the demands of life outside the game.

People will find out quickly who oblige or not and temper their oppositional preferences accordingly.
Likewise, if people gain a bad name (i would say feedback will be a good tool for this too) as perpetually overusing/abusing a team babysitter they will find less opposition.




I honestly have no problem with asking if i may, in the event of it proving necessary, play for a team-mate. most people say 'gl' at the start! i think they can say 'Y' too?

[Timminz]

As for Timm's suggestion again, the shopowner comment is actually fairly accurate. 99% of players here should reasonably be able to expect that they are playing the person who owns the account and not someone else. As such, if there is any derivation from that norm, it it should be the responsibility of the people deviating from it.

To say that the majority of people here EXPECT to be playing against sitters is a gross misunderstanding me thinks

You misunderstood me. I'm not saying that most people expect to be playing against a sitter. I'm saying that most people don't care if, when one player can't make it, their teammate takes their turn. Which is why I think the onus should be on the minority to deny, rather than the majority to ask permission.

[gloryordeath]

But don't you think Tim that the more a rule is used and the more people that use it the faster it becomes part of the system and hardly even thought of just done? Why not be proactive and find sitters ahead of time that you can trust. Ask them to talk to your partner in your games and make the move with them not just on their own. I can hardly think that anyone could not find good players to work with your teammate to keep the game on the right track.

[detlef]

But don't you think Tim that the more a rule is used and the more people that use it the faster it becomes part of the system and hardly even thought of just done? Why not be proactive and find sitters ahead of time that you can trust. Ask them to talk to your partner in your games and make the move with them not just on their own. I can hardly think that anyone could not find good players to work with your teammate to keep the game on the right track.

Dude, don't you think this approach takes the whole thing a bit seriously? Sounds like you're basically advocating keeping an understudy on board for all your team games just in case. Listen, I'm as in to this game as the next guy, but I'll be damned if I'm going to follow along with somebody else's games just in case they need me to step in at some point.

[jbrettlip]

When does this rule take effect? My premium expires 5/15 and since I depend on teammates taking turns for me, I will be an enormous (but yet quite good looking) cheat. If it is still up for discussion, I would reiterate that if you want everyone to know who they are playing, babysitters MUST be on the same team. Otherwise a top player could hide behind a babysitting role and play for another. This also would enforce the use of the ignore list, to keep others out of games.

If I owned/ran this site: the rule would be: Teammates may take each others turns at will. No babysitting can be done on singles games. In freestyle, turns may not be taken by a babysitter in conjunction or succession as the team's other turns. Simple, concise and clear.

PS Now can we talk about the dice? I don't think they are random.

[gloryordeath]

Sure you would need an understudy if you were so good or had a way of playing no one even with the help of our own partner in the game could do but you. That was not my point I'm sure you and others have a system and are good at it. But you can't say hey Tom we have played together and/or against each other and I might be gone some days in these games and the other players said no my teammate can not make my turns. We make our turns at these times and I would like you to talk with my partner before or during turns. Could you do this for me, maybe I would even do the same for you when you need? It could be more than 1 person and all they have to do is follow your partners lead. I'm not saying everyone has to do this or something like it just it is an option. The more options you can back yourself up with within the rules the less likely you will ever have a problem. Myself I know I only need to make one post and all my games will be taken care of as if I played and anyone doing it will follow all site rules.

[Twill]

I'm saying that most people don't care if, when one player can't make it, their teammate takes their turn.

Neither of us can say that for our 20,000 active members, unless you can read minds

What we do know is that when you create a game, you start from the understanding that "this is a game for 5 people". You cannot control WHO joins your game (for the most part) but you can control how many join. As such, you should reasonably be able to expect that in a 5 player game you are playing exactly 5 people.

So lets not say that most people care or not because that is imposing opinion on someone you don't know. Lets work from what can be reasonably expected when you sit down to play a group of people.

jbrettlip, the rule doesn't make you a cheater unless you break it
There are plenty of ways you can get someone to sit for you legitimately and yes, you may need to adjust, but if you have more than 1 team mate who understands your playstyle, it should be pretty damn easy to do it.

The onus should be on the person seeking a derivation from the norm - i.e. if you want someone else to play for you, it is your responsibility to ensure that is ok with everyone else and to do it in a way that is kosher.

[Soloman]

I'm saying that most people don't care if, when one player can't make it, their teammate takes their turn.

Neither of us can say that for our 20,000 active members, unless you can read minds

What we do know is that when you create a game, you start from the understanding that "this is a game for 5 people". You cannot control WHO joins your game (for the most part) but you can control how many join. As such, you should reasonably be able to expect that in a 5 player game you are playing exactly 5 people.

So lets not say that most people care or not because that is imposing opinion on someone you don't know. Lets work from what can be reasonably expected when you sit down to play a group of people.

jbrettlip, the rule doesn't make you a cheater unless you break it
There are plenty of ways you can get someone to sit for you legitimately and yes, you may need to adjust, but if you have more than 1 team mate who understands your playstyle, it should be pretty damn easy to do it.

The onus should be on the person seeking a derivation from the norm - i.e. if you want someone else to play for you, it is your responsibility to ensure that is ok with everyone else and to do it in a way that is kosher.

Why not send the various options to all active memebers and have them vote on it as far as team games have a deadline date for responses to votes and from that detrermine the rule all sides have valid points for the most part(JR being that most part) but in the end all will be affected those that currently play teams and those that may start in the future.

[jiminski]

Why not send the various options to all active memebers and have them vote on it as far as team games have a deadline date for responses to votes and from that detrermine the rule all sides have valid points for the most part(JR being that most part) but in the end all will be affected those that currently play teams and those that may start in the future.

not meaning to be rude or elitist here but i am not sure this makes sense....
I think that babysitters may be more of a burning issue to those with more than 4 games going at any one time. therefore the result may be quite different to the consensus here?
Who knows what the vote could bring if you get 10,000 fremiums randomly voting on an issue which never occurred to them. ( i do not know if this is true or not and genuinely no offence intended.)

I could be wrong and i truly do not wish to say Fremiums do not have a right to a view but we should be careful what we wish for here. It may not be akin to the classic vote which was very much the same for us all and affected us all equally. It is more like forwarding a motion on who the best Pokemon monster is in the Pichuchu clan Forum and then asking the rest of the site to vote on it!

[Nephilim]

yes, seems like a vote could be a good idea....especially since the poll options in this thread make no sense whatsoever.....

and limiting it to premiums is probably solid thinking too......

ps: twill, you keep repeating that someone deviating from "the norm" should have the responsibility to bear here......problem is, you have a baseless assumption as your "norm." how many team games played by premium members entertain at least one turn of baby-sitting? 15, 20, 25 percent or more? i'm sure there's no way to know.....w/o a poll, and even then we shouldn't assume honesty in said poll. it's just not valid to assume some sort of norm, especially when we have plenty of players here who admit using sitters all the time.....

[Soloman]

Why not send the various options to all active memebers and have them vote on it as far as team games have a deadline date for responses to votes and from that detrermine the rule all sides have valid points for the most part(JR being that most part) but in the end all will be affected those that currently play teams and those that may start in the future.

not meaning to be rude or elitist here but i am not sure this makes sense....
I think that babysitters may be more of a burning issue to those with more than 4 games going at any one time. therefore the result may be quite different to the consensus here?
Who knows what the vote could bring if you get 10,000 fremiums randomly voting on an issue which never occurred to them. ( i do not know if this is true or not and genuinely no offence intended.)

I could be wrong and i truly do not wish to say Fremiums do not have a right to a view but we should be careful what we wish for here. It may not be akin to the classic vote which was very much the same for us all and affected us all equally. It is more like forwarding a motion on who the best Pokemon monster is in the Pichuchu clan Forum and then asking the rest of the site to vote on it!

Just real quick if anything it would mean more because we have less games to balance out with and the team games we play we cannot afford to miss a turn on...

[James Vazquez]

Why not send the various options to all active memebers and have them vote on it as far as team games have a deadline date for responses to votes and from that detrermine the rule all sides have valid points for the most part(JR being that most part) but in the end all will be affected those that currently play teams and those that may start in the future.

not meaning to be rude or elitist here but i am not sure this makes sense....
I think that babysitters may be more of a burning issue to those with more than 4 games going at any one time. therefore the result may be quite different to the consensus here?
Who knows what the vote could bring if you get 10,000 fremiums randomly voting on an issue which never occurred to them. ( i do not know if this is true or not and genuinely no offence intended.)

I could be wrong and i truly do not wish to say Fremiums do not have a right to a view but we should be careful what we wish for here. It may not be akin to the classic vote which was very much the same for us all and affected us all equally. It is more like forwarding a motion on who the best Pokemon monster is in the Pichuchu clan Forum and then asking the rest of the site to vote on it!

Just real quick if anything it would mean more because we have less games to balance out with and the team games we play we cannot afford to miss a turn on...

This is a veiled attempt to dictate who gets a voice here. Everyone has a voice here. Whether you play one team game or onehundred the same rules apply. No matter premium or freemium.

Sounds an awful lot like some in here would want only the people who the rule would negativily affect having the only opinion that counts. There was a similar attempt made at te begining of this thread. Where some claimed those that didnt play many team games didnt have a say.
To me it seems like a weak attempt to defend a weak point.

[jiminski]

Why not send the various options to all active memebers and have them vote on it as far as team games have a deadline date for responses to votes and from that detrermine the rule all sides have valid points for the most part(JR being that most part) but in the end all will be affected those that currently play teams and those that may start in the future.

not meaning to be rude or elitist here but i am not sure this makes sense....
I think that babysitters may be more of a burning issue to those with more than 4 games going at any one time. therefore the result may be quite different to the consensus here?
Who knows what the vote could bring if you get 10,000 fremiums randomly voting on an issue which never occurred to them. ( i do not know if this is true or not and genuinely no offence intended.)

I could be wrong and i truly do not wish to say Fremiums do not have a right to a view but we should be careful what we wish for here. It may not be akin to the classic vote which was very much the same for us all and affected us all equally. It is more like forwarding a motion on who the best Pokemon monster is in the Pichuchu clan Forum and then asking the rest of the site to vote on it!

Just real quick if anything it would mean more because we have less games to balance out with and the team games we play we cannot afford to miss a turn on...

This a veiled attempt to dictate who gets a voice here. Everyone has a voice here. Whether you play one team game or onehundred the same rules apply. No matter premium or freemium.

hey bulshy-pants... i thought you and i were not posting any more.

it is not thinly veiled at all James, It is what it is! i attempted to be as honest as i could be and to be as bloody humble as I possibly could whilst still voicing a concern!

stop trying to escalate this into an argument please.. if you want this to dissolve into mud-slinging due to your own agenda, then fine! but do not thinly veil it by passing the blame to me please.