The Official Clan Sitting Rules (Old Version)

[Bruceswar]

LOL I ust feel now OSA has been violated and how convenient rules apply after the weekend

Care to fill me in? We need to give people time to look at these rules and have them soak in some.

[benga]

LOL I ust feel now OSA has been violated and how convenient rules apply after the weekend

Care to fill me in? We need to give people time to look at these rules and have them soak in some.

A bit of irony, we have hurried any games in queestion so we avoid any shit it may come out of it anyway

[grifftron]

Isn't this what the rules were already?

[Bruceswar]

Isn't this what the rules were already?

Yes and no. For the most part yes, but there are some changes. Pretty much most of the clan world has nothing to worry about.

[HardAttack]

Bruce;
I understand your points you made, thank you for giving time in it explaining here.
On the other hand, there are not more than 5 clans we have got who has real well developed watch back for a turn/player mechanisms to cover a possble turn missing scenario. The rest ? In my opinion this last hour thing, either going to be broken (since ppl are going to take these in danger turns not in last hour maybe 2 hours before the turn to miss), or the turn is going to be missed. Not well developed clans already are challenging against huge clan trusts/big monsters like kort/tofu/empire/tsm, isnt it enough big challenge to them then give them the last hour to form/set a new challenge to bare with. With all my respect, i would like to state it that, i think last hour or last two hours, is not the core of why we all are here and brain storming for a way or ways to re-set new orders/rules for abuse free sitting to take place. In other words, lets work on the core of this but just my 5 cents, no need to be this strict over last hour thing, make it last 2-3 hours, believe me man, it will look even better. Gonna ease it, lives, and boost the taste of gaming and clan exprience we all have got around here.

Thanks for the all works and study so far.

[Nicky15]

In response to punishments. We have already tried to draft a scale but this proved problematic, the main concern being that we did not know exactly what we would face. So concreting a scale seemed unrealistic at this point.

The CDs are starting a new group, CD and Friends. This will replace the CLA. We will discuss a punishment scale in more detail in there with clan reps from every clan. We will end up with something concrete. We will also look at any minor amendments if needed as well. But for now the rules will stand as they are.

[josko.ri]

Some clans (mainly speaking of low ranked clans, but not in general) uses this game not so seriously like top ranked clans. can thi rules be not followed if both clans makes mutual agreement about it before the war, in order to avoid complications and make the game simpler for them?

If answer is yes, Another example how the agreement proposal can be make:

"Dear representatives of clan XX. We have player Moonchild, who by the current rules is not allowed to play our challenge because he does not have internet at weekends. We think that he also deserves to have fun playing clan wars, like every other player.
What we propose to you?
1. That you agree him to play 8 games. he will play it normally monday to friday (unless to him happens something happened which is described in clan sitting rule policy) and he will be away during weekends. josko.ri will sit for him during weekends.
2. If you agree with this, we propose that every game where josko.ri sit for moonchild (1 turn or more) is valuated like 0.5 game for josko.ri. so, if josko.ri sit in every 8 games, then josko.ri is allowed to play maximal 16 games instead of 20 that he would normally play.
3. Every games they will play in the same team, in order than josko.ri does not have influence in games he is not in, and only has influence in games he is anyway in.
4. every game Moonchild will be in team after josko.ri, point of that is that josko.ri can haste/stall his turn, to minimize sitting. For example, if josko's turn comes on Thursday, he can play it as soon as possible, so maybe moonchild's turn comes on Friday, or if josko's turn is Sunday then he can stall his turn in order that Moon's turn comes in Monday.
5. It would be reccomended that our home games that moonchils is in would be joined in Sunday morning by your team. point of that is that his opening turn, which is often the most important in a game, comes to play in next 5 days so it does not to be played by sitter."

So if opponent clan agrees to this proposal, is in this case ok to put player in, who is absent every weekend? or in general, is it ok to not implement some or all of these rules, if both clan agree previous to the clan war?

In addition, I honestly think this is adressed to be rules vs josko, not for the clan benefit in total. otherwise, why would unlimited settings be highlighted in rules over other settings? also word "vast majority" can also be used against josko, but when other players come to the judgement, it can be interpreted different. if those words are replaced by "80%" or "70%" then it would be equal rules for all player. Just information purpose, during last 2 months I sat for Moonchild in 28,1% turns during his weekend absences, so 72,9% he played by himself. In my opinion, it is vast majority of turns played by himself. in someone other' opinion it is maybe not. So i¥t should be precisely stated where is the difference between allowed and not allowed sitting. in my opinion, turns sat by me for him can even go below 20% if both my team and opponent team are careful about timing of playing turns on Wednesdays, Thursday, and if opponent team join games on Sundays. not sure if that enters into "vast majority" definition.

As a conclusion, the main problem of sitting in clan wars those rules did not adress, and it is over usage of player by his sitting. names are not important but actions are important, so I will not mention names... in Clan League 4, Phase 3, one my opponent has played maximal number of games allowed by himself, and also sat for many players. in my opinion, this is real problem in sitting from clan perspective. if someone plays 28/28 allowed games by himself, and sit at least one turn, he is then overused player in the challenge as he played more than maximum allowed. I regret that this rules do not allow part time players to have fun, but still allow some players to be involved in their challenges more than they should, by playing maximal games by themselves and going over the limit by sitting for others. That is main problem in clan sitting policy, and until this will be solved by rules, there will exist players who are going around that rules to get unfair advantage to their clan.

[GoranZ]

More I think about the new rules more I'm against them... I fell that I'm being targeted with new rules because of someone else's misuse. And whats most important proposed rules don't even target the problem, they target players like me who have done nothing wrong, nor they think of doing of something wrong in the future.

Example: Majority of my clanmates are from US time zones so now I have huge problems when it comes of emergency supervision from 9 AM to 2 PM. And now I have to find new sitters who are compatible to my playing style, and are from my time zone, and preferably from my clan.

One very specific question: Is it CD team job to propose sitting rules? according to me NO.

But CD team could have proposed something like this:

1. The announcing in chat, of the name of the person who has covered a turn will now be mandatory.
2. Only 100 turns(number taken by example) can be supervised in a war for all war participants no matter the reasons(exception can be huge RL disasters like earthquake or hurricanes... those clan members supervisions wont count)
3. For every 3(number taken by example) new turns 1 point negative punishment.

Simple solutions that targets those alliances that have a habit of supervising members for strategic reasons and not those clans that play by the rules.

[jetsetwilly]

Some clans (mainly speaking of low ranked clans, but not in general) uses this game not so seriously like top ranked clans. can thi rules be not followed if both clans makes mutual agreement about it before the war, in order to avoid complications and make the game simpler for them?

If answer is yes, Another example how the agreement proposal can be make:

"Dear representatives of clan XX. We have player Moonchild, who by the current rules is not allowed to play our challenge because he does not have internet at weekends. We think that he also deserves to have fun playing clan wars, like every other player.
What we propose to you?
1. That you agree him to play 8 games. he will play it normally monday to friday (unless to him happens something happened which is described in clan sitting rule policy) and he will be away during weekends. josko.ri will sit for him during weekends.
2. If you agree with this, we propose that every game where josko.ri sit for moonchild (1 turn or more) is valuated like 0.5 game for josko.ri. so, if josko.ri sit in every 8 games, then josko.ri is allowed to play maximal 16 games instead of 20 that he would normally play.
3. Every games they will play in the same team, in order than josko.ri does not have influence in games he is not in, and only has influence in games he is anyway in.
4. every game Moonchild will be in team after josko.ri, point of that is that josko.ri can haste/stall his turn, to minimize sitting. For example, if josko's turn comes on Thursday, he can play it as soon as possible, so maybe moonchild's turn comes on Friday, or if josko's turn is Sunday then he can stall his turn in order that Moon's turn comes in Monday.
5. It would be reccomended that our home games that moonchils is in would be joined in Sunday morning by your team. point of that is that his opening turn, which is often the most important in a game, comes to play in next 5 days so it does not to be played by sitter."

So if opponent clan agrees to this proposal, is in this case ok to put player in, who is absent every weekend? or in general, is it ok to not implement some or all of these rules, if both clan agree previous to the clan war?

In addition, I honestly think this is adressed to be rules vs josko, not for the clan benefit in total. otherwise, why would unlimited settings be highlighted in rules over other settings? also word "vast majority" can also be used against josko, but when other players come to the judgement, it can be interpreted different. if those words are replaced by "80%" or "70%" then it would be equal rules for all player. Just information purpose, during last 2 months I sat for Moonchild in 28,1% turns during his weekend absences, so 72,9% he played by himself. In my opinion, it is vast majority of turns played by himself. in someone other' opinion it is maybe not. So i¥t should be precisely stated where is the difference between allowed and not allowed sitting. in my opinion, turns sat by me for him can even go below 20% if both my team and opponent team are careful about timing of playing turns on Wednesdays, Thursday, and if opponent team join games on Sundays. not sure if that enters into "vast majority" definition.

As a conclusion, the main problem of sitting in clan wars those rules did not adress, and it is over usage of player by his sitting. names are not important but actions are important, so I will not mention names... in Clan League 4, Phase 3, one my opponent has played maximal number of games allowed by himself, and also sat for many players. in my opinion, this is real problem in sitting from clan perspective. if someone plays 28/28 allowed games by himself, and sit at least one turn, he is then overused player in the challenge as he played more than maximum allowed. I regret that this rules do not allow part time players to have fun, but still allow some players to be involved in their challenges more than they should, by playing maximal games by themselves and going over the limit by sitting for others. That is main problem in clan sitting policy, and until this will be solved by rules, there will exist players who are going around that rules to get unfair advantage to their clan.

To pick up on a couple of your points.

Moonchild's situation is unfortunate but definitely falls foul of this rule:

"You must not enter clan games if you know in advance that you will not be able to take the vast majority of your turns in any game or be unable to take your turns on a regular basis. Having your account sat on a regular basis for the duration of any clan game will no longer be allowed. If you are going to participate in clan games, it should be you who will actually play in these games."

Having your account sat on a regular basis would definitely apply in this case.

For the moment we are not proposing that these rules can be modified on a clan war by clan war basis. As Bruce alluded to, we might review that in the future.

After much discussion amongst the CD's and KA we decided not go with a fixed percentage at this time.

I feel I should also stress that these rules were first drafted on September 20th and whilst we have certainly used recent events as the motivation for speeding up their implementation, they have certainly not been written with any one player or clan in mind.

[josko.ri]

It is no without reason that one part of my post is bold, and other part are not. the bold part is the most important, so I expect the most reply and rules improving regarding that part.

[jetsetwilly]

It is no without reason that one part of my post is bold, and other part are not. the bold part is the most important, so I expect the most reply and rules improving regarding that part.

So to the bold part.

I think you raise a good point and it's not one that this set of rules directly addresses. I would like to think that the introduction of these rules would reduce the impact of what you are talking about because we expect to see less account sitting anyway.

The question of whether someone who uses their maximum game allocation and then sits a considerable number of games on top is a different one but it's one that we would be happy to take away and discuss too.

[josko.ri]

It is no without reason that one part of my post is bold, and other part are not. the bold part is the most important, so I expect the most reply and rules improving regarding that part.

So to the bold part.

I think you raise a good point and it's not one that this set of rules directly addresses. I would like to think that the introduction of these rules would reduce the impact of what you are talking about because we expect to see less account sitting anyway.

The question of whether someone who uses their maximum game allocation and then sits a considerable number of games on top is a different one but it's one that we would be happy to take away and discuss too.

That is just extreme case. However, there are also cases when someone plays one less game than maximum but sits for 10 or more players, 1 turn or more, depends on case. in that case it is also overused player. The right direction would be make sitting count, like every turn sat increase game count of sitter by 0,5. or by 0,33 or 0,25 or whatever. but just giving you right direction to adress that problem, which is in my opinion the bigest in clan sitting practice, and in no word is adressed in these rules, which is another fact which convinces me more these rules are just anti-josko rules, and not clan sitting problems rules. And you know that this problems are not from yesterday, it was already discussed and mentioned on many instances before when speaking about sitting issues.

[jetsetwilly]

It is no without reason that one part of my post is bold, and other part are not. the bold part is the most important, so I expect the most reply and rules improving regarding that part.

So to the bold part.

I think you raise a good point and it's not one that this set of rules directly addresses. I would like to think that the introduction of these rules would reduce the impact of what you are talking about because we expect to see less account sitting anyway.

The question of whether someone who uses their maximum game allocation and then sits a considerable number of games on top is a different one but it's one that we would be happy to take away and discuss too.

That is just extreme case. However, there are also cases when someone plays one less game than maximum but sits for 10 or more players, 1 turn or more, depends on case. in that case it is also overused player. The right direction would be make sitting count, like every turn sat increase game count of sitter by 0,5. or by 0,33 or 0,25 or whatever. but just giving you right direction to adress that problem, which is in my opinion the bigest in clan sitting practice, and in no word is adressed in these rules, which is another fact which convinces me more these rules are just anti-josko rules, and not clan sitting problems rules.

Well we can only assure you that these aren't anti-Josko rules and I can say that I think your main point here is worthy of further discussion. Given we don't know in advance how many turns a sitter will sit, how would we go about managing a rule here ? Actually Josko let's not discuss this here. Please pm the CD's separately to discuss this point for future consideration.

[josko.ri]

Given we don't know in advance how many turns a sitter will sit, how would we go about managing a rule here ? Actually Josko let's not discuss this here. Please pm the CD's separately to discuss this point for future consideration.

Again, everyone has right to discuss here, just josko need to use pm?

You can manage it that someone, who is aware his own game load is high, do the count by himself. if I play 18/20 games by myself, so 2 more are allowed, then I know that I can sit only 4 turns (in case of 0,5 marker) so when I sit 4 turns then I am not allowed to sat a single more turns, so player who need sitting need to find another sitter.

And here is now duty to post sitting info in chat, so opponents will also be able to check it if they are interested.

[jetsetwilly]

Given we don't know in advance how many turns a sitter will sit, how would we go about managing a rule here ? Actually Josko let's not discuss this here. Please pm the CD's separately to discuss this point for future consideration.

Again, everyone has right to discuss here, just josko need to use pm?

You can manage it that someone, who is aware his own game load is high, do the count by himself. if I play 18/20 games by myself, so 2 more are allowed, then I know that I can sit only 4 turns (in case of 0,5 marker) so when I sit 4 turns then I am not allowed to sat a single more turns, so player who need sitting need to find another sitter.

And here is now duty to post sitting info in chat, so opponents will also be able to check it if they are interested.

We just don't want this particular thread to get bogged down in additional discussions outside of the current set of rules. We can cover it in a different thread if needs be but let's allow us to deliver this first. We can consider future changes/additional rules when the dust has settled.

[azezzo]

What a bunch of crap, only on vacation?, only within the last hour b4 a turn expires, Really?
Why only on vacation? In my own life, I work 12-16 hour days without advanced warning from my employer sometimes and have texted my team mates to cover my turns for me, or how about if your power goes out and you lose internet for awhile, why not call for help from a clan member to cover for you? Adding rules upon rules does not make this game / site any more enjoyable, If I am asked to cover for a team mate, or vice versa, why should I sit home and wait to play his turn at the last hour, I see nothing wrong with simply making sure the turn is not missed. I really dont see these 2 issues as being anything to worry about in clan games, its clan against clan, so in my opinion, so long as a clan member is playing, I dont care who it is, or when it is.

[Nicky15]

What a bunch of crap, only on vacation?, only within the last hour b4 a turn expires, Really?
Why only on vacation? In my own life, I work 12-16 hour days without advanced warning from my employer sometimes and have texted my team mates to cover my turns for me, or how about if your power goes out and you lose internet for awhile, why not call for help from a clan member to cover for you? Adding rules upon rules does not make this game / site any more enjoyable, If I am asked to cover for a team mate, or vice versa, why should I sit home and wait to play his turn at the last hour, I see nothing wrong with simply making sure the turn is not missed. I really dont see these 2 issues as being anything to worry about in clan games, its clan against clan, so in my opinion, so long as a clan member is playing, I dont care who it is, or when it is.

Now you are taking this too literally. If you have been asked to cover then that is a different story. It is when a player has gone awol that this hour rule applies. You can't simply jump into someones account and take turns when it suits you. This borders on account sharing. If you have had no contact from the player involved, how do you know they wont be taking their turns? The hour mark has been set as this is a fair indicator that a turn actually is in danger of being missed. This rule is also in place to stamp out the practice that it is ok to leave turns and others will pick them up for you. Everyone should become responsible for their own accounts. Having said all this if you are constantly requiring a sitter and not taking your own turns, then you should not be entering games.

The players on the team sheet should be the ones who actually play the game. Not just anyone from the clan. What is to stop Clans from fielding teams then getting the best player in the clan to take their turns for them. Do you want to play vs a few people or play a clan.

[benga]

For the bold, it makes a huge difference are you sitting the 1st turn for the whole team
or for a turn when the game has already been decided, josko is still trying to come off here
from higher ground.

[macbone]

I've read the first post, the first page, and the posts so far on this page, so I haven't covered everything, but I agree with most of this. Perhaps BW's point about players who miss one weekend a month has been covered, but to me that's covered under sitting for someone on vacation, like for National Guard drill in the US.

I'd like to see the hour limit be moved to 2 hours, though. If someone's in danger of missing a turn, that player's sitters aren't always online then, and 2 hours gives you enough time to catch someone (and turns still get missed even with this in play).

Otherwise, I'm down with the guidelines outlined in the first post. However, the punishments seem too broad-brushed (my apologies if they've been amended on p. 2-4). We need to know exactly what will happen for the first offense, the second offense, and so on.

[Nicky15]

I've read the first post, the first page, and the posts so far on this page, so I haven't covered everything, but I agree with most of this. Perhaps BW's point about players who miss one weekend a month has been covered, but to me that's covered under sitting for someone on vacation, like for National Guard drill in the US.

I'd like to see the hour limit be moved to 2 hours, though. If someone's in danger of missing a turn, that player's sitters aren't always online then, and 2 hours gives you enough time to catch someone (and turns still get missed even with this in play).

Otherwise, I'm down with the guidelines outlined in the first post. However, the punishments seem too broad-brushed (my apologies if they've been amended on p. 2-4). We need to know exactly what will happen for the first offense, the second offense, and so on.

A discussion with Clan reps will start shortly. In this discussion we will examine the best way to determine a punishment scale.

[Nicky15]

Now we will listen. Points will be raised in Cd and friends. All clans will have a representative. And it will be this reps responsibility to portray their clans views. Any amendments will be voted on in there.
We can't please everyone. So we have to represent what is best for the vast majority.
Weekend sitting will be voted on, as well as the hour mark. In regards to the unlimited rule, this is another example of a minor thing that can be discussed in the group. What we were keen to do was prevent clans making any agreement that gives them any potential unfair advantage. If it is deemed that this isn't the case we will remove that rule.

As a conclusion, the main problem of sitting in clan wars those rules did not adress, and it is over usage of player by his sitting. names are not important but actions are important, so I will not mention names... in Clan League 4, Phase 3, one my opponent has played maximal number of games allowed by himself, and also sat for many players. in my opinion, this is real problem in sitting from clan perspective. if someone plays 28/28 allowed games by himself, and sit at least one turn, he is then overused player in the challenge as he played more than maximum allowed. I regret that this rules do not allow part time players to have fun, but still allow some players to be involved in their challenges more than they should, by playing maximal games by themselves and going over the limit by sitting for others. That is main problem in clan sitting policy, and until this will be solved by rules, there will exist players who are going around that rules to get unfair advantage to their clan.

Josko, these rules were not made for you. These these rules are to make a fair and level playing field for everyone.

We expect to see a dramatic reduction in sitting as players should not be entered into games that they can't play. Your point will be added to the discussion in the user group and all clans will get to vote on it. Clans must use common sense and do what they can to avoid allegations of abuse. Having the best players in the clan sit all the games, does give that clan an unfair advantage. Sitting duties should be spread evenly amongst the clan as far as possible.

[bragsie]

We the bastards all ready have a fixed sitting rule with in our group, it's quite simple really, 2 hours or less, unless otherwise stated in a pm, that's it, how simple is that, people tell me when they are away or otherwise busy with life issues and I don't put them in, cuts out all the red tape, people that abuse the rule get kicked out of the clan, simple, if they forget to put there names to the game they have sat for they are told by the player they are sitting for.

Why over complicate a simple situation with new rules.

If people are abusing sitting by taking certain games to help the clan win then there is a problem and it needs to be dealt with by the clans involved. No nonsense just cut the player,
I don't see a problem with people unable to play most weekends, it's family time, and my life with my family is far more important. Yes I am new but I give my all to my clan and sit for people where I can.

This needs a complete rewrite and cut down to simple terms, else it will stifle and snuff out the fun that is clan

Feel free to pm me, love hate mail

Also not trying to dis you guys for the hard work you do

[Ickyketseddie]

I think this is a great start. Personnally i think people are getting a little caught up in the details here. If everyone takes a step back i think they'll realise that most of that clans sitting practices are perfectly fine as they are. This is only procedures put in place to prevent sitting abuse that comes with regular sitting.

Also where people are calling for concrete numbers and rules, i'm agaist this also. I think the right desicion has been made here. We've all seen that when you have rules like that in place there are always those that will seek to abuse them and find the loopholes to maximise there gain rather than just playing the game as it was intended. Take our former conquerer for example.

With the proposed ruleset there is plenty of room for comman sense calls to be made. Personnally i think this is the only way you will cover every possible situation. That way if someone is trying it on within a hairs width of the rules they can be pulled up without quoting black and white to try any get away with it, when everyone knows whats really going on. The real question here is do you trust Bruce and the CD team to make the correct desions when these incidents arrise? Well, you have my full support.

The only thing in the ruleset i disagree with is this Unlimited Forts stuff. I dont see that the rules should be specific to any game setting/map preference. This clearly seems to have been included do to the recent Josko case and is only really applicable in that case because the said player is well known for his ability in that area. If it was anyone else it could easily be more of a handicap than an advantage and punishing it would be equally ridiculas. This could easily be said about more than a couple of complex maps on CC too.

My 2p anyway.

Ed

[Koganosi]

2, Emergency cover may only be given if the person really is in danger of missing a turn. Therefore a turn can only be covered if there is an hour or less left on the clock. But steps must be taken to contact the player before hand.

I know some peeps in RL I sit in with my clan, they sometimes text me when they are gonna miss a turn? I took up contact with them then and can cover with the emergency, and the 1 hour rule thingie. But how can I prove to you guys then that I contacted them? If someone ever makes a C&A report or something on it?

Urs

Koganosi

[jetsetwilly]

2, Emergency cover may only be given if the person really is in danger of missing a turn. Therefore a turn can only be covered if there is an hour or less left on the clock. But steps must be taken to contact the player before hand.

I know some peeps in RL I sit in with my clan, they sometimes text me when they are gonna miss a turn? I took up contact with them then and can cover with the emergency, and the 1 hour rule thingie. But how can I prove to you guys then that I contacted them? If someone ever makes a C&A report or something on it?

Urs

Koganosi

Quite right, we aren't going to be asking screen prints of a text message or an email ! Clearly there's an element of trust involved here. If it happens time and time again for a player then that trust would be questioned.