The Official Clan Sitting Rules (Old Version)

[HardAttack]

since account sitting is a matter in risk game/s, or a matter of conquer club, so you have got a better deal maybe you fully close/shut down the site ? This way you wudnt needed to bother urselfves with account sitting problem/s... How is that ?

So without account sitting CC ceases to exist? Please......

brother,
believe me, yes account sitting is such an important part of gaming in this site, especially an unavoidable part of clan wars...
then it comes to clan/s ? lets remove them ? if happens, in very short time prolly this site wud lose 5000 customer in a month to a year...
that much ppl, directly or indirectly a part of this clan world.

[BADPAT]

The main reason for the start of this thread is to minimise cheating in clanchallenges and clan tournaments wich IMHO opinion is a good idea as long as the rules that are gonna be set actually stop cheating and/or the breaking any CC rule.

I am sure that every single competitive clan has a thread of list in their own clan forums thats shows them the most favorite games and settings of their members. All home games are based on that detailed info as it gives the clanleaders and/or MOW the tools to form the best teams for any upcoming clanchallenge or clantournament. The same goes for the away games and fill those with the best team possible. ( one of the exceptions is the Random League with its random games ).

The majority of the games in challenges and tournaments is mostly dubs, trips and quads. ( and yes i know in this case there are also exceptions) but i want to use the dubs, trips and quads as an example.

At least a week or two before the start of any clanchallenge or clan tournament we start a thread in our forums about these upcoming challenges or tournaments and ask our members if they are available to take part in this challenge or tournament. This gives us the needed info in advance so we know who of our members can be used and who isnt gonna be around. If not available we just do not use those members. This will solv the most problems of missed turns or the need for a sitter.

As the clanleaders and/or Mows have created the best teams for those dubs, trips and quads why not use the teammates as an exclusive sitter for their fellow teammate and do not allow any other member of a clan that is not in that specific game as a sitter.

For dubs it will give you one sitter.
For trips it will give you two sitters.
For quads it will give you three sitters.

A seperate rule can be implimented for singles.

This will stop having members of a clan exceed the limit of games they are allowed to participate in and limits account sitting as clanleaders and/or MOWs have to think twice before putting a team in a game. Probably will minimise abuse as well and will solv the problem of players that for whatever reason dont have internet during weekends.

It is maby even possible to change the time limit of 1 hr into 4 hrs. ( Just an idea).

There is allways gonna be a bunch of players that are gonna cheat and CC is not an exception. It is unreal to think that most of the rules who have been sugested are gonna change that. Random ip checks for one is a good idea but its just not gonna work and certanly isnt gonna make you bust cheaters. There is enough free software around on the net that makes it possible to login CC or any other online game without you guys finding out and still will show you the ip of the players account that has been logged into withouth you guys knowing if it was that owner of the account or someone with the right software who is able to do so and lives at the other end of the world.

I still do appriciate the effort from the CD's side tho.

TY

BADPAT

[Vid_FISO]

My suggestion to "help" the 1 hour time rule is this:

Keep the 1 hour rule. If a turn is sat you must post in chat.
Expand the rule to 2-4 hours, and in addition to the chat a reason for sitting must also be given.

Example:
1 hour or less:
IcePack for ChapCrap
3 hours:
IcePack for ChapCrap - he hurt his lady parts and is in the ER. It's 2300 and I'm off to bed, couldn't wait the extra 2 hours.

If patterns start emerging, or extensive use of the additional time is noticed, a clan can ask CD's to review the frequency and reasons and a they can either ok it, give a warning, etc.

This allows some flexibility, while keeping the intent to minimize sitting and abuse and allows the opposing clan easy access to info if they feel the other clan is going overboard.

But chapcrap was online for 3 hours 9-12 hours ago, played moves in 30+ games, played a handful of speed games, finished a couple of other games in RT, made a half dozen forum posts and sorted out a few pms, including the one that said "waiting for instructions in game xxxxxx, tonight's the quarterly night where the missus is willing to have shag which understandably I'm not going to rush as the next one is due around Easter, please wait for the instructions and follow them for me" (nothing against chapcrap of course, he's your example)

[IcePack]

My suggestion to "help" the 1 hour time rule is this:

Keep the 1 hour rule. If a turn is sat you must post in chat.
Expand the rule to 2-4 hours, and in addition to the chat a reason for sitting must also be given.

Example:
1 hour or less:
IcePack for ChapCrap
3 hours:
IcePack for ChapCrap - he hurt his lady parts and is in the ER. It's 2300 and I'm off to bed, couldn't wait the extra 2 hours.

If patterns start emerging, or extensive use of the additional time is noticed, a clan can ask CD's to review the frequency and reasons and a they can either ok it, give a warning, etc.

This allows some flexibility, while keeping the intent to minimize sitting and abuse and allows the opposing clan easy access to info if they feel the other clan is going overboard.

But chapcrap was online for 3 hours 9-12 hours ago, played moves in 30+ games, played a handful of speed games, finished a couple of other games in RT, made a half dozen forum posts and sorted out a few pms, including the one that said "waiting for instructions in game xxxxxx, tonight's the quarterly night where the missus is willing to have shag which understandably I'm not going to rush as the next one is due around Easter, please wait for the instructions and follow them for me" (nothing against chapcrap of course, he's your example)

Not every game or every clan waits until the last hour and comments. Sometimes, a player plays all games he's able to and the has to step out.

If I (example) have 10 games ongoing and it's my turn in 6 of them. I play 3 quickly while drinking coffee before class and then go to class. If I fall and trip after class and break an ankle my turns should be able to get covered.

Again this is why you'd then post in the game chat the reasons. If a clan thinks its silly or sees that chap has been all over the forums they can ask for a review and CDs can warn the clan on a case by case basis, especially if patterns of abuse seem likely. That way legimate sitting can still be accomplished within different time zones etc and you have to justify every turn taken over 1 hour.

[chemefreak]

Okay. Don't you people have anything better to do? Like play some other player's turns?

[Vid_FISO]

Okay. Don't you people have anything better to do? Like play some other player's turns?

Nope, fancy a 1v1?

[[RFA]Juggalo]

Honestly, this all sounds like a big joke. No im not saying that simply to whine and complain, as i do not sit or ask for sitters. To me this is a joke because you are butting specifically into the clan war field, which you may say "we wanna bring back under the blanket of total rule blah blah blah" as the "lines in clan activities have become blurred" but what is the real issue here. The only thing i can think of is people are complaining about losing clan wars BECAUSE someone is sitting? that is just stupid. If there is another reason please let me know, because i cannot think of another good reason to simply butt in and go "well gee guys you all need more rules, even though you are obviously capable of handling your own events and wars". It is kind of ridiculous to try and wrest power away from the people who are doing these events and wars. If anything, it should simply be let the clans decide what is fair amongst themselves. No one makes anyone play anything. Not to mention that you are taking isolated cases and blowing them out of proportion. This all seems like a vast overreaction to something that isnt a huge problem. Ive been doing clan wars since 2007, and have never once seen a "gross abuse" of the sitting rule. Nor have i ever felt i lost a game due to sitters. Seriously sounds like someone got butthurt about losing or not having total control over something, so lets all overreact and throw more rules into the mix, cuz that always solves all the problems. Oh wait no, the other thing, it doesnt, thats right.

[Funkyterrance]

lol, so for you if one of your opponent takes a turn for a clanmate that has disapeared he is gaining an unfair advantage on you? That's funny, because I'd rather say that if an opponent misses a turn I gain an unfair advantage on him, as you know, you haven't eliminated that player yet the gameplay is doing so for 1 round(mostly on an escalating where missing a turn can be game over). Because this guy had something he had to attend to or whatever, means screw his team, and screw his clan. The opponent has just received the magical righ to play 2 back to back turns because they deserved it! then pops up this moron covering for his partner because he knows he's gonna miss, unfair advantage!!!

This is a crazy stance you are taking.
You are saying that the person who takes his own turn is gaining an unfair advantage over a person who doesn't take his own turn. That's nonsense.

Tbh, it just sounds like the lot of you are spoiled. You are used to being able to brush off your turn-taking responsibilities and someone will always break your fall. Besides, in this modern age there are computers everywhere. Heck, I can take turns from my phone on a bathroom break or even borrow my friend's phone if I have to (not in the bathroom scenario). If your clan has people in it who regularly miss turns then your clan is obviously weak. Honestly, whenever I am in a clan game and someone fills for someone else it really makes the person who missed look like a schmuck/weak player. Incidentally, it's almost always a more skilled player who does the filling in. The player who is in danger of missing is obviously just a warm body to fill a slot anyway and probably contributes zero to the game at hand.
A clan should consist of a group of players, not a small percentage of people pulling the puppet strings of all the rest. Let's imagine a clan war in real life. If there were 5 warriors who were completely fit and strong and the rest were just average citizens they would be slaughtered for sure. Also, if some warriors didn't show up for battle, the stronger warriors can't pick up their slack. So as far as missing turns: Suck it up cupcakes? Just admit your weaknesses and accept your standing in light of this.

[macbone]

See, here's the issue here. Conquer Club is a casual gaming site. It wasn't created to be a huge time-sink as I understand it. In a regular terminator-standard game, sure, it won't kill you to miss a turn (unless it's the final sweep in an Escalating game, but still, tough).

But with clans, it becomes more competitive, and say what you will, missing a turn costs your team. Yeah, this isn't super serious stuff, but I for one don't want to be the guy that makes my clan lose a game, and clan wars are decided all the time by the margin of one game.

Turn sitting has never been ruled illegal, and in fact guidelines are in place to allow it under certain situations, such as when a player is on vacation or is in danger of missing the turn. This has never been ruled against the rules.

What is a problem is when one player is taking difficult turns for other players, especially in the context of a clan war when caps are in place on the maximum number of games a player is allowed to play in. This is where the casual side of CC conflicts with the competitive side.

For those of you who have never had a turn sitter, I commend you. But personally, I don't want to disadvantage the teams I play on and potentially cause them to lose because I ended up with a bunch of meetings and couldn't take my turns at 1 pm during lunch like I had planned to earlier in the day, or my family decided to spend the day together at the space museum and I didn't want to spend fifteen minutes on my ipod catching up on my games. If Conquer Club wants to be simultaneously casual and competitive, it ought to have room both for the guy who can't always take his turn and doesn't want his team to lose and the guy who can't always take his turn and doesn't mind missing (and hopefully, he's playing on the opposite team from me (= ).

[uckuki]

If there were 5 warriors who were completely fit and strong and the rest were just average citizens they would be slaughtered for sure.

Not if they were Samurai. They'd cut 'em up left and right.

[Funkyterrance]

If there were 5 warriors who were completely fit and strong and the rest were just average citizens they would be slaughtered for sure.

Not if they were Samurai. They'd cut 'em up left and right.

Well, that's debatable.
Let's take the example of 25 barbarians vs. 5 Samurai and 20 peasants. Which clan is your money on?

[Funkyterrance]

See, here's the issue here. Conquer Club is a casual gaming site. It wasn't created to be a huge time-sink as I understand it. In a regular terminator-standard game, sure, it won't kill you to miss a turn (unless it's the final sweep in an Escalating game, but still, tough).

But with clans, it becomes more competitive, and say what you will, missing a turn costs your team. Yeah, this isn't super serious stuff, but I for one don't want to be the guy that makes my clan lose a game, and clan wars are decided all the time by the margin of one game.

Turn sitting has never been ruled illegal, and in fact guidelines are in place to allow it under certain situations, such as when a player is on vacation or is in danger of missing the turn. This has never been ruled against the rules.

What is a problem is when one player is taking difficult turns for other players, especially in the context of a clan war when caps are in place on the maximum number of games a player is allowed to play in. This is where the casual side of CC conflicts with the competitive side.

For those of you who have never had a turn sitter, I commend you. But personally, I don't want to disadvantage the teams I play on and potentially cause them to lose because I ended up with a bunch of meetings and couldn't take my turns at 1 pm during lunch like I had planned to earlier in the day, or my family decided to spend the day together at the space museum and I didn't want to spend fifteen minutes on my ipod catching up on my games. If Conquer Club wants to be simultaneously casual and competitive, it ought to have room both for the guy who can't always take his turn and doesn't want his team to lose and the guy who can't always take his turn and doesn't mind missing (and hopefully, he's playing on the opposite team from me (= ).

Here's the thing, mac : you're an honest guy. If everyone in every clan was like you I could care less and anyone could cover for anyone. It's the rotten apples that are causing these rules to be enacted and their presence, unfortunately, can't be ignored.

[crispybits]

See, here's the issue here. Conquer Club is a casual gaming site. It wasn't created to be a huge time-sink as I understand it. In a regular terminator-standard game, sure, it won't kill you to miss a turn (unless it's the final sweep in an Escalating game, but still, tough).

But with clans, it becomes more competitive, and say what you will, missing a turn costs your team. Yeah, this isn't super serious stuff, but I for one don't want to be the guy that makes my clan lose a game, and clan wars are decided all the time by the margin of one game.

Turn sitting has never been ruled illegal, and in fact guidelines are in place to allow it under certain situations, such as when a player is on vacation or is in danger of missing the turn. This has never been ruled against the rules.

What is a problem is when one player is taking difficult turns for other players, especially in the context of a clan war when caps are in place on the maximum number of games a player is allowed to play in. This is where the casual side of CC conflicts with the competitive side.

For those of you who have never had a turn sitter, I commend you. But personally, I don't want to disadvantage the teams I play on and potentially cause them to lose because I ended up with a bunch of meetings and couldn't take my turns at 1 pm during lunch like I had planned to earlier in the day, or my family decided to spend the day together at the space museum and I didn't want to spend fifteen minutes on my ipod catching up on my games. If Conquer Club wants to be simultaneously casual and competitive, it ought to have room both for the guy who can't always take his turn and doesn't want his team to lose and the guy who can't always take his turn and doesn't mind missing (and hopefully, he's playing on the opposite team from me (= ).

Then the players who are competitive should get together and be as ultra-competitive as they want, and if that matters to them then they won't miss 99.999% turns even if they don't have sitters. And the casual players will team up with the casual players and if people miss turns well it's just a bit of fun and nobody really cares if the odd game gets dropped for it.

But if a group of players wants to be competitive, then invites a bunch of casuals who only want to play when it's convenient for them to their team, then they should accept the consequences of that, in that turns will occasionally be missed, and should probably think hard about if they want to use those players for the competitive games.

And if someone is a casual player and they want to join the competitive arena, then they should accept that they will have to prioritise it higher than before and make sure they make time and opportunity to take all of the turns that entails.

But to say that the competitive players should be allowed to have use of casual player's accounts, knowing that those casuals will go AWOL from time to time and will miss turns, and then assume they can account share those accounts to play out the games that matter to them whenever they want..... that's just screwed up.

[Funkyterrance]

But if a group of players wants to be competitive, then invites a bunch of casuals who only want to play when it's convenient for them to their team, then they should accept the consequences of that, in that turns will occasionally be missed, and should probably think hard about if they want to use those players for the competitive games.

I love this paragraph. Well put.
If you've got riders on your coattails, they ought to weigh you down a little.

[Keefie]

I have absolutely no problem with these rules at all. HH have never abused account sitting, we have never logged into other clan mates accounts to check fog games and if there is an odd missed turn then so what.

Personally I'd take this thing one step further and ban account sitting. It would be a darn site easier for everyone.

[Funkyterrance]

I have absolutely no problem with these rules at all. HH have never abused account sitting, we have never logged into other clan mates accounts to check fog games and if there is an odd missed turn then so what.

Personally I'd take this thing one step further and ban account sitting. It would be a darn site easier for everyone.

I'm fine with this as well. Account sitting makes for laziness and rule bending all around. It's not worth the aggravation.

[IronWood]

I say whatever.... you guys are making an issue out of something that shouldn't be an issue. If I need somebody to sit for my account (which BTW, I never have)... but if I did, I'm not going to be held to some arbitrary rules.

[Funkyterrance]

I say whatever.... you guys are making an issue out of something that shouldn't be an issue. If I need somebody to sit for my account (which BTW, I never have)... but if I did, I'm not going to be held to some arbitrary rules.

So no reason to consider whether or not it's against the rules? Lovely.
The rules aren't really that "arbitrary", as everyone keeps parroting. In fact, they seem to made with accountability in mind.

[crispybits]

Arbitrary rules like the ones you agreed to follow when you signed up for this site?

Are all rules you don't agree with arbitrary and to be broken whenever you feel like it?

[ahunda]

Ban account sitting ? You guys are losing all sense of proportion ...

After years of clan gaming we have accumulated the insane amount of 2 (in words: two) documented cases of account sitting abuse in C&A, only one of which was actually ruled "Guilty". This thread here is full with people saying they & their clans have never engaged in this kind of behaviour, and yet there is mass hysteria & people seeing suspected cheating around every corner.

I remember a clan challenge, where a player of the other clan was kicked out of all his active games, because he was banned from the site. So all you people would probably have said: Oh yeah, serves this clan right, their fault, suck it up. We on the other hand said, we will not punish an entire clan of friendly & fair players for the wrong-doings of one black sheep, and if this challenge comes down to 1-2 games in the end, we won´t have it said, we won only because of this incidence, and so we allowed the other clan to re-make the concerned games.

You can translate this 1:1 to a case, where a player goes awol in the middle of a challenge, because of a RL emergency (happened to us in our last challenge). You want to have a 40-60 game challenge with 40-50 participating players be decided by something like that ? Maybe the finals of a year long tournament like the Conquerors Cup ? Or maybe an entire Clan League season ?

This here borders on group psychosis ...

[jghost7]

See, here's the issue here. ...
Turn sitting has never been ruled illegal, and in fact guidelines are in place to allow it under certain situations, such as when a player is on vacation or is in danger of missing the turn. This has never been ruled against the rules.

What is a problem is when one player is taking difficult turns for other players, especially in the context of a clan war when caps are in place on the maximum number of games a player is allowed to play in. This is where the casual side of CC conflicts with the competitive side.

...

This.
CC already has guidelines for account sitting. If changes need to be made for account sitting, then they should be addressed site wide. There should not need to be two sets of rules for this. You are either within the rules or you aren't.

The real issue behind this whole debacle is hardly even being addressed in this thread. The only attempt to cover the issue is Basic Rules 2 and 4. All of the rest should be erased and more specific efforts be placed to try to fix the problem. Perhaps a direct and more specific approach should be considered.

I do not think trying to add more rules to the rule will accomplish anything positive. It just creates more confusion and controversy. It will also add more unnecessary work for the CDs to sort through.

I also see this being used as a reason to arbitrarily address whatever issues the CD's happen to have at the time. As with previous attempts from the CD's office to lay down the law, a semi-vague set of superfluous and redundant rules that they can use to penalize clans at their discretion. This allows them to pick and choose who gets the ax and who slides at their whim.

Don't get me wrong. I do respect the efforts they have made thus far in helping in the clan arena, and even to take the time to try to address the perceived problem. However, I do not believe that this is the answer, indeed it will probably prove to be counter productive in the end.

Thanks,

J

[crispybits]

Why is it losing all sense of proportion to contend that if a clan puts one name down on a team sheet for a game that the player named should be the one playing that game?

Compare it to Davis Cup tennis. If Rafa Nadal is half way through a game and falls and breaks his arm, he isn't able to complete that game. Sure Spain can bring in a sub for other scheduled games that havent yet started, but they can't decide to let David Ferrer step into the Nadal match at 1 set all and 4-2 to Spain and have him finish. They just forfeit that game due to Nadal not being able to continue, suck it up, and do their best to win the rest.

Maybe if players not being able to take their own turns is such a problem for competitions containing hundreds of game sand taking months to play out is such a problem then clans should adapt and play shorter competitions with less games and less players involved. Do clan wars need to be epic sagas with this any games over this much time? Why not have the strongest 5 hardcore never miss a turn players from each clan go head to head? Why allow for huge grey areas in the rules for everyone just so clans can have these ridiculously oversized contests?

And the rules apply the same to all - any clan is equally likely to lose a player for a bit. In the end the contests won or lost due to missing players would even out surely? or the clan with the most reliable players would come out slightly ahead, just like any sports team with the least injury-prone star players will have an advantage on the ones that are always in the physio room.

[Funkyterrance]

Ban account sitting ? You guys are losing all sense of proportion ...

After years of clan gaming we have accumulated the insane amount of 2 (in words: two) documented cases of account sitting abuse in C&A, only one of which was actually ruled "Guilty". This thread here is full with people saying they & their clans have never engaged in this kind of behaviour, and yet there is mass hysteria & people seeing suspected cheating around every corner.

The 2 cases were documented by sheer luck in that the accused got sloppy. This is not the sort of thing that happens very day. Who is to know this isn't just a glimpse of what lies beneath. There are plenty of grounds for suspicion.

I remember a clan challenge, where a player of the other clan was kicked out of all his active games, because he was banned from the site. So all you people would probably have said: Oh yeah, serves this clan right, their fault, suck it up.

Yes! That person was a member of your clan, you chose him/her for whatever convenient reason and you can't just drop all accountability because it affects your clanwar. Why is this concept of accountability so elusive? This is just another example of how deeply the rot of this whole issue has spread. "Why should my clan lose because one of my members is a jackass and got himself banned?" Hmm, let me think about that... Your clan recruited him/her in the first place and furthermore added him/her to your clanwar games. Of course this should affect the outcome of your war.

You can translate this 1:1 to a case, where a player goes awol in the middle of a challenge, because of a RL emergency (happened to us in our last challenge). You want to have a 40-60 game challenge with 40-50 participating players be decided by something like that ? Maybe the finals of a year long tournament like the Conquerors Cup ? Or maybe an entire Clan League season ?

Yes. Your clan as a whole got bad luck, just like what can happen with the dice. Maybe that person shouldn't have been so heavily booked in your games that it greatly affects the whole war? I don't know. Suck it up and accept responsibility. So some players ranks drop, so you lose the war. So what? These are all parts of being in a clan in the first place ; you are affected by the actions of your fellow clansmen.

You all are acting like a bunch of people who turned in their book reports late and are hurt because your teacher deducted points. There's nothing unfair about any of these new developments, It just looks like you don't like the rug being pulled out from under you.

If you want your clan to be represented by only your strongest players, cull the herd or recruit better players. Just don't expect those who have been playing by the rules all along to be sympathetic when your buffer of an advantage is taken away.

[ahunda]

Nowhere did I say, that the player assigned to a game should not be expected to play the game. What I am saying, is: RL shit happens, fact of life, and sometimes a player will not be able to take turns/play the game he was assigned to. For this very reason CC allowed account sitting.

I mean, seriously, get a grip on your perspective: You are only talking about cheating & abusing the system. But what about all the legitimate reasons for account sitting ? Someone being ordered on a business trip with very short notice, someones child being hospitalised, someone losing Internet connection because of a storm, etc. pp.

These things happen. This is not the Davis Cup, and we are not professional full time CC players. We do have real lifes, jobs, families, that - if you have your priorities straight - should come first, before a casual online game.

The problem is not account sitting. The problem is abuse of account sitting to gain a strategic advantage. You guys got carried away so far in this thread, that you seem to see account sitting = abuse. And as I pointed out, from the simple facts we have so far (documented cases of abuse), I don´t understand, why. You seem hysteric & over-reacting.

Funkyterrance even lost the most basic reading comprehension skills, as my example of the banned player referred to a player of the opposing clan, not mine. And so he of course completely missed the entire point I was trying to make: I would dislike winning a challenge, because someone on the other side dead-beated in 3 games, just about as much as I would dislike losing, because one of my clan-mates had some emergency come up.

Guys, get this clear: I don´t mean to defend abuse & unfair game-play. But let´s be reasonable, how to address the issues. You are really going amok here, and your proposed measures (i.e. all-out ban of account sitting) would ruin CC for many of the more casual players, who do have RL commitments.


EDIT: Wow, on second reading I actually find Funkyterrances post border-line insulting.

Just don't expect those who have been playing by the rules all along to be sympathetic when your buffer of an advantage is taken away.

Wtf are you implying here, man ?

[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.

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.

If C.C. is going to make rules they should be taken litterally, it was stated that ip addresses were going to be monitored, I agree that you shouldnt be allowed to jump into someones account without being asked, but how is c.c. gonna know one way or the other?, as far as who's subbing, its a non-issue so long as its a fellow clan member