The Official Clan Sitting Rules (Old Version)

[SirSebstar]

a pattern will quickly emerge when ip checks reveal a particular player to often sit for another player in clanwars. or e.g. a particular player misteriously use'd the same proxy as another "known" player. in the end, when they go looking, there are smoking guns everywhere of acces that should not be.
incidental is.. more or less acceptable. intentionally getting the system to go haywire for your pleasure is not.

bottom line is, you can play a lot, but dont make a mess. ( play your own account, unless you really cannot)

[pearljamrox2]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=442&t=156203&start=45#p3612265

[Funkyterrance]

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 ?

This wasn't meant to be directed at anyone in particular but those who are partaking in sitting abuse know what I'm referring to. It does stand to reason that those who are griping the loudest are the ones who are going to be most dramatically affected by the changes. Why should anyone so strongly object to all this?

What is being drawn out of this issue, to me, is that when an account is being sat, especially in the clan environment, someone else is controlling that account. They may be strategizing, they may be peeking, they may be running the show. Who is to know? Normally when you sit for someone who has an "emergency" you do just that: you sit. You don't affect the game with your personal superior strat, you just try to leave the game more or less as you left it so that when the person comes back they can pick up where they left off. Anything more that this moves into the area of abuse because the person filling in is adding to the pot so to speak. This is the same reason why it's not Ok to log onto someone's account and give tips for strat in a foggy game.
To use your own words: "This isn't the Davis Cup". You're right, its the conquer cup. It's not real life so missing a turn is not such a big freaking deal and it's worth the trade-off if it means less cheating, even if its a small percentage. I don't want to play against any cheaters/rule benders as their mere presence is a stain on this site.
As far as my reading comprehension with your example I don't think it matters whose side had the missing player.

[greenoaks]

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.

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

you two should be running the show.

[stahrgazer]

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?

Thing is, crispy, the only "account sitting" rule I signed up for when I signed up for this site was not to abuse it; but abuse wasn't defined as, "you can't take the turn for the account you've agreed to sit unless there's less than 1 hour left to play or you received three people's permission in advance."

When rules are "overkill" they are arbitrary. When rules state within the rules themselves that the rules will not be enforced across the board, then they are arbitrary.

Every once in a while when I'm sitting for someone who's on vacation, I forget to post that I'm the one taking the turn. Oops, my bad - I'm sure I'm not the only one who's ever forgotten that, either. But now these are part of the "Official clan sitting rules" that will cost the clan the game? Or, someone in authority will say, "okay, stahr, it's okay in your case," while telling someone else it wasn't okay.

It's arbitrary and it's overkill.

Also, when I'm scheduled to account sit, and know it, I take the turn at my convenience. If that means I start the game because it's convenient, with ten hours left to play, I'm not going to reschedule my day to make sure I return in nine hours to start the game... and with these rules, if this occurs and I didn't ask daddy's permission, or daddy wasn't around to okay it in advance, it's now going to cost the clan the game? Or, someone in authority will say, "okay, stahr, it's okay in your case," while telling someone else it wasn't okay.

Again, arbitrary and overkill.

These types of things are not abuse. If it always happens, or happens a ton, sure, then it's probably abuse. Then again, it could be that someone's work schedule suddenly went haywire so needs account sitting alot more than was thought, in which case it's once again NOT abuse. Reasonable clan members will then say, "sorry, can't participate in the next round after all," if they know it's going to happen.

But, really, to come up with this arbitrary set of rules that will be arbitrarily enforced is overkill unless clans really believe this sort of thing is happening close to 50% of the time.

And if that's the case, then why not outlaw clan wars while we're at it, that'd end clan war abuse for sure. Right?

[crispybits]

I don't disagree with you entirely - I agree that the rules should be more clear cut and there should be a very definite line between "this" that is allowed and "that" which is not. I can see the point about an exact line allows abuse up to that line, which is why I also say the line should be set at zero. That allows no abuse.

But when you sign up you agreed to the rules. Those rules are now being clarified/amended. You have the clear choice, you can either play by the new rules, leave, or cheat. I hope you decide to stay because though you may not like the new rules they "should" apply the same for everyone. But I hope that if you really can't find enjoyment under these rules you quit, because if you stay and you cheat then you're not being fair on me or anyone else that decides to play fair (and "fair" is whatever the rules say, this isnt a democracy, whatever the people in charge say are the rules are the rules and remain the rules until the people ion charge change them, and we can try and persuade them it should be one way or another but in the end the only power we have is whether we keep coming back or not)

[Funkyterrance]

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?

Thing is, crispy, the only "account sitting" rule I signed up for when I signed up for this site was not to abuse it; but abuse wasn't defined as, "you can't take the turn for the account you've agreed to sit unless there's less than 1 hour left to play or you received three people's permission in advance."

When rules are "overkill" they are arbitrary. When rules state within the rules themselves that the rules will not be enforced across the board, then they are arbitrary.

Every once in a while when I'm sitting for someone who's on vacation, I forget to post that I'm the one taking the turn. Oops, my bad - I'm sure I'm not the only one who's ever forgotten that, either. But now these are part of the "Official clan sitting rules" that will cost the clan the game? Or, someone in authority will say, "okay, stahr, it's okay in your case," while telling someone else it wasn't okay.

It's arbitrary and it's overkill.

Also, when I'm scheduled to account sit, and know it, I take the turn at my convenience. If that means I start the game because it's convenient, with ten hours left to play, I'm not going to reschedule my day to make sure I return in nine hours to start the game... and with these rules, if this occurs and I didn't ask daddy's permission, or daddy wasn't around to okay it in advance, it's now going to cost the clan the game? Or, someone in authority will say, "okay, stahr, it's okay in your case," while telling someone else it wasn't okay.

Again, arbitrary and overkill.

These types of things are not abuse. If it always happens, or happens a ton, sure, then it's probably abuse. Then again, it could be that someone's work schedule suddenly went haywire so needs account sitting alot more than was thought, in which case it's once again NOT abuse. Reasonable clan members will then say, "sorry, can't participate in the next round after all," if they know it's going to happen.

But, really, to come up with this arbitrary set of rules that will be arbitrarily enforced is overkill unless clans really believe this sort of thing is happening close to 50% of the time.

And if that's the case, then why not outlaw clan wars while we're at it, that'd end clan war abuse for sure. Right?

If you fail to mention you take a player's turn in a clanwar and it turns out you get caught, why the heck should you get the benefit of the doubt? Are you special? Just because you have an explanation doesn't prove that there wasn't abuse. Just cross your t's and dot your i's. It's a privilege to be able to sit IMO and if you fudge it then you forfeit that game. You were lazy, forgetful? Ok, then you lose. Why does everyone act like it's their god-given right to have their games covered anyway? It's sloppy to begin with in a clan environment. If you're not competitive, fine, just do what you feel, but for those who are competitive you've got to appreciate the situation and the opportunity to gain an unfair advantage. If you want to shit on something, shit on the players who made this whole business necessary.

The problem with the new system imho is that it's not strict enough. It's too easy for someone to say: "I'm going to go on vacation, my clan leader is taking my turns for me. K, thx bye."

[ahunda]

Yeah, well, Funkyterrance: As I said, I think, you got carried away here & are not seeing things clearly anymore.

The new rules, that were laid down in this thread, might make account sitting abuse a bit more difficult, but they also make life a bit more difficult for all honest & fair players, who only ever sit accounts in real emergencies, as per the official CC rules.

I for one have never ever taken turns for a clan mate in order to gain some advantage, and yet I find the idea, that I might now need to stay up til 2 o´clock at night to cover a turn for someone, who just missed turns in 3 other games, just so that the timer is down to the last hour, a bit irritating. I feel, I am being made to suffer for the abuses of others, by no fault of mine.

And I would appreciate it, if I could state my opinion without being banged over the head with some general accusation/suspicion, that I must be guilty of some shady behaviour, only because I happen to see things a bit different than you.

Also, as I said in my last post: Maybe first consider, in how far the suggested measures even address the issues at hand. What you mentioned in your last answer to me for example has nothing to do with account sitting abuse. Everybody can take screenshots of a fog game, post it in his clan forum or PM it to the most skilled player in his clan & ask for advice on the next turn. If a clan really wants it that way, they can have one player dictating every single turn in every single game of a challenge. How do you address this by banning account sitting ? You don´t. Can you address it at all ? I doubt it. You can only appeal to the community to not engage in this kind of behaviour.

You are mixing up all kinds of issues here and cry for radical measures without even considering their real effects, incl. the side effects for non-cheating, honest & fair players. Now I personally didn´t comment in this thread for 10+ pages. Only when you guys got so far as to call for an all-out ban of all account sitting, did I post. Because this really goes too far, in my opinion.

Never ever have I or my clan abused account sitting to gain a strategic advantage in our challenges. But often have we needed it over the years, because someone did get called away on a business trip on short notice, or got talked into a weekend camping trip by the girl-friend (who strangely enough didn´t care that much about him being active in 3 clan games at the time), or had to go out of town for a funeral, or lost Internet for a couple of days for whatever reason.

We were allowed to sit those turns, that would otherwise have been missed, and we were allowed to play out those games, that would otherwise have been dead-beated. Just as the opposing clans were allowed to cover for similar emergencies on their side.

Why would you want to abolish this practice ? How much positive usage of account sitting would you sacrifice for a very questionable impact on actual cheating/abuse ?

[crispybits]

ahunda I know you weren't addressing me but I'd like to ask 2 very quick questions

1) If account sitting was banned, and everyone knew the rule and followed the rule would anyone have any unfair advantage over anyone else?

2) If the rules were left wide open, and everyone knew the loopholes and gray areas in the rules and some people decided to abuse them, would anyone have an unfair advantage over anyone else?

[Funkyterrance]

1) If account sitting was banned, and everyone knew the rule and followed the rule would anyone have any unfair advantage over anyone else?

2) If the rules were left wide open, and everyone knew the loopholes and gray areas in the rules and some people decided to abuse them, would anyone have an unfair advantage over anyone else?

This is what the proponents of the all out ban of sitting are saying for sure. It will solve ahunda's issue of staying up late because it won't be an option. It's so simple its perfect: You just cant' sit.
It's just going to boil down to whether or not you are willing to put the extra effort to take your turn when you're away or not. If you're serious about the game, which I can assume any general would be, you are going to find a way to take your turn. If you're not serious, you most likely drop rank but who cares, it's just a game.
I'm sorry ahunda if you are butthurt about my earlier comment but I thought I made it clear that I wasn't referring to you specifically. What more can I say?

[jghost7]

What more can I say?

Nothing would be fantastic. I won't hold my breath though...lol.

[ahunda]

crispybits, I think, your suggestive question somehow misses the point:

If account sitting was banned, a new luck factor would come into play: Clans, who had the bad luck of a RL emergency happening to one of their members during an ongoing clan challenge, would suffer several losses due to no fault of theirs. No unfair advantage for anyone, just completely arbitrary outcomes of games & challenges, that could easily have been avoided by account sitting.

At the same time, as out-lined in my last post, plenty of options to take unfair advantage would remain for people looking for them: "If a clan really wants it that way, they can have one (their most skilled) player dictating every single turn in every single game of a challenge." Banning account sitting will not have any impact on this.

Probably not relevant to the discussion at hand, but banning account sitting would have negative impacts outside of clan competitions also. I for example am planning a Christmas vacation, where I will have no Internet access at all. Knowing this I stopped joining new games well in advance, yet it is beyond my personal control, if one of my active games due to crazy dice (or a lot of missed turns of other players) will turn into a really lengthy battle, lasting much longer than average. Right now I have total peace of mind, because I know, if 1-2 of my games are indeed not finished before I leave, I can ask a clan mate to sit & finish them for me.

[Funkyterrance]

Yeah, well, Funkyterrance: As I said, I think, you got carried away here & are not seeing things clearly anymore.

The new rules, that were laid down in this thread, might make account sitting abuse a bit more difficult, but they also make life a bit more difficult for all honest & fair players, who only ever sit accounts in real emergencies, as per the official CC rules.

You are mixing up all kinds of issues here and cry for radical measures without even considering their real effects, incl. the side effects for non-cheating, honest & fair players. Now I personally didn´t comment in this thread for 10+ pages. Only when you guys got so far as to call for an all-out ban of all account sitting, did I post. Because this really goes too far, in my opinion.

Why would you want to abolish this practice ? How much positive usage of account sitting would you sacrifice for a very questionable impact on actual cheating/abuse ?

Do you think I have never had my account sat? I've had power outages, vacations, etc. where I needed my account sat but I would gladly give up this feature for the sake of fairness. Yes, there are always new and inventive ways to circumvent the system but if it makes the cheating harder, I'm all for it. Just logging into your clanmates account is just way too easy.
I've read the threads regarding the account sitting abuse cases and it's disgusting. I would have never have believed the lengths that people would go to do such things but the proof is right there. Am I now supposed to forget I've seen this underbelly and take your word that it's not really an issue? I don't see why I should care about the convenience of account sitting if it endangers the fairness of the game. I can see your stance but for you to consistently not see the other stance just looks bad.

[crispybits]

The entire game is based on luck - we all roll hundreds of dice every week (assuming we're premium with a decent game load running).

The extra luck wouldn't benefit anyone more than anyone else.

As I said if clans wanted competitive gaming, then the competitive gamers who very rarely miss turns because the competition is important to them will find each other. If clans want casual gaming, the players who don't mind losing the odd game because someone deadbeats will find each other. If someone wants to go from casual to competitive then they know they have to prioritise it higher.

There are net cafes in every town in the western world. There is internet access on smartphones. If your power goes out both of those are viable options. If your internet is down both of those are viable options. If you have to go out of town on business both of those are viable options. The number of people for whom neither of those are viable options is tiny, and limited to park rangers, professional mountain climbers, etc. If you get sick even most modern hospitals have ways that patients can get online, and if you're really sick or hurt then until you're over the worst of it CC doesn't matter a jot anyway. If a family crisis comes up then CC won't matter anyway.

As for the team mates of the players that get sick or hurt or have to deal with family crises.... do they have such little compassion that if a friend and clan mate is in a hospital bed, or having some sort of major life crisis, the thing that they think about is "damn that joe! how dare he make me lose a computer game just cos his dad died!" Seriously?

It's A GAME. IMO you either play it by rules that are fair to everyone, or don't play it at all.

[Funkyterrance]

So it's settled then, no more account sitting.

[IcePack]

So it's settled then, no more account sitting.

...or not.

[Foxglove]

As I said if clans wanted competitive gaming, then the competitive gamers who very rarely miss turns because the competition is important to them will find each other. If clans want casual gaming, the players who don't mind losing the odd game because someone deadbeats will find each other. If someone wants to go from casual to competitive then they know they have to prioritise it higher.

There are net cafes in every town in the western world. There is internet access on smartphones. If your power goes out both of those are viable options. If your internet is down both of those are viable options. If you have to go out of town on business both of those are viable options. The number of people for whom neither of those are viable options is tiny, and limited to park rangers, professional mountain climbers, etc. If you get sick even most modern hospitals have ways that patients can get online, and if you're really sick or hurt then until you're over the worst of it CC doesn't matter a jot anyway. If a family crisis comes up then CC won't matter anyway.

You're a moron. As is FunkyTerrance. I enjoy CC a lot - I have played here for 5 years now through holidays, vacations, family issues, and illnesses. I enjoy playing competitively, and yet I've had my account very legitimately sat any number of times. Not for any advantage, but because I've been doing things like:
- giving birth to a child who arrived 5 weeks early
- taking a cruise
- traveling to visit ill family members
- traveling internationally on very long flights with a child
- traveling for work
- etc.

CC requires a commitment EVERY SINGLE DAY. I have done this FOR YEARS (as have many people here). I feel completely within my rights to request clan mates to sit for me on the rare occasions I'm unable to get my turns. And I intensely resent the people in this thread who are acting like witch hunters and trying to create an atmosphere wherein every person who ever advocates for or uses account sitting is viewed as a despicable cheater.

Also - anyone in this thread who has written any variation on the words "all clans do X" or "all top clans do Y", please do me the favor of shutting your ignorant mouth. No single person knows what "every clan" does. I feel like I barely know the workings of any other clan than my own. If you've never been in a particular clan, and you don't have first-hand knowledge of how it works from a friend who is in that clan, then no, you don't know how they do things. All you're doing is exaggerating and spreading gossip.

[crispybits]

I have at no point claimed that every pro-sitter is a cheat. I have only said that some people will abuse grey areas and loopholes

And well done for having your rank, seriously. It's a testament to your skill and dedication and I respect that. But does that rank on this site mean more to you than any of those things you listed? Does that rank mean more to you than anyone else's versions of anything you listed?

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I'm simply saying I want a fair game. That means closing off the loopholes and the grey areas. If that means that for a couple of weeks each year (on average) everyone will suffer a bit of a rankings hit then it's the same for everyone. If I said everyone should drop 100 points right now would that be unfair? Or would it make no difference at all to the overall standings? If I said that those people who don't mind bending the rules as far as they will go all get given an extra 100 points right now would that be unfair? Or maybe a percentage, so a fair player who wouldnt bend any rule gets 0 extra points, and someone who will go half way to the limits gets 50... how about that? Is that unfair?

[Foxglove]

I have at no point claimed that every pro-sitter is a cheat. I have only said that some people will abuse grey areas and loopholes

And well done for having your rank, seriously. It's a testament to your skill and dedication and I respect that. But does that rank on this site mean more to you than any of those things you listed? Does that rank mean more to you than anyone else's versions of anything you listed?

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I'm simply saying I want a fair game. That means closing off the loopholes and the grey areas. If that means that for a couple of weeks each year (on average) everyone will suffer a bit of a rankings hit then it's the same for everyone. If I said everyone should drop 100 points right now would that be unfair? Or would it make no difference at all to the overall standings? If I said that those people who don't mind bending the rules as far as they will go all get given an extra 100 points right now would that be unfair? Or maybe a percentage, so a fair player who wouldnt bend any rule gets 0 extra points, and someone who will go half way to the limits gets 50... how about that? Is that unfair?

First, thank you for being reasonable after I was rude. My apologies!

Second, I think you misunderstand my motivations. I actually don't care about points and individual games. What I enjoy on this site now are clan challenges, and the stakes of a missed turn are (potentially) a lot higher than just some lost points. What if I missed a turn that lost a game that lost a clan challenge? Then I would be responsible for ruining the efforts of 25 people for 9 months of clan warring? That seems unreasonable to me. If I only played standard non-team, non-clan games I wouldn't care about missing turns.

[catnipdreams]

I feel strongly that legitimate sitting needs to be as painless and easy for the person doing the sitting as possible. A sitter is adding to their time spent on CC; extra time that could have been used differently is now being used to assist another player. To properly sit a turn in a game that you aren't part of takes a considerable amount of time. The team chat needs to be read to understand the strategy being used, and a new board has to be carefully examined to fully understand the current status of the game, before the turn is taken. We need to be very careful not to significantly add to this burden.

Some mention has been made of eliminating sitting altogether. This is completely unacceptable to me. I put a considerable amount of time into my team games, and to have those games ruined because a teammate cannot play his/her turns for understandable real life reasons is ridiculous. I also don't want to let my teammates down. Just because I might have a real life issue that is more important than taking a turn in a game, should they suffer for it? A simple request for sitting, and the conflict between whatever is going on in my real life, and my desire to not let my teammates down, is easily avoided.

Requiring that the sitter's name be posted in open game chat when the turn is taken seems like a simple thing to do. Some allowance needs to be made for a sitter occasionally forgetting to post in open game chat; that is normal human error. Doing random IP checks seems like a reasonable way to uncover any systematic abuse.

I understand why a time limit of one hour for emergency sitting has been proposed, but it also potentially excessively burdens a sitter. The 3 am example has been mentioned before; that is a very valid concern. Waking up in the middle of the night to take a friend's turn when there is a reasonable expectation that it would be missed, and could have been sat earlier at a more convenient time, is not fun.

It seems to me that this is all about transparency. If it is known exactly who is sitting, and when that sitting occurs, then abuses can be easily identified. Until a software sitting function is implemented, perhaps the requirement to identify yourself in open game chat if you sit for someone, plus the random IP checks, is sufficient? That doesn't seem excessively burdensome. Allow sitting to occur at any point during the 24 hour cycle; this is easiest for sitters. Look for patterns of abuse that lead to an unfair advantage, and react accordingly. Strongly encourage the new site owner to implement a proper sitting function as a priority.

I also really like allowing individual clans to negotiate sitting terms along with other clan war terms. The negotiated parameters can be as precise (or not) as the clans involved desire them to be. This allows maximum flexibility, while minimizing the impact on legitimate sitters.

[JBoy]

".......

[spiesr]

Thing is, crispy, the only "account sitting" rule I signed up for when I signed up for this site was not to abuse it; but abuse wasn't defined as, "you can't take the turn for the account you've agreed to sit unless there's less than 1 hour left to play or you received three people's permission in advance."

If you have "agreed to sit" someone's account then that means that they have informed you of there impending absence and thus the emergency one hour rule isn't in effect. You can take those turns at you convenience.

I for one have never ever taken turns for a clan mate in order to gain some advantage, and yet I find the idea, that I might now need to stay up til 2 o´clock at night to cover a turn for someone, who just missed turns in 3 other games, just so that the timer is down to the last hour, a bit irritating. I feel, I am being made to suffer for the abuses of others, by no fault of mine.

Look at it this way. You are NOT required to take those turns. You and/or your clan have the choice of either taking those turns at that undesirable time of day, or potentially letting those turns be missed. As such you can weigh the expected impact and importance of said turns versus the difficulty of taking them at the allotted time. It is your choice how much effort you want to put into your clan's war effort.

[crispybits]

OK how about a different solution, and bear with me here because the idea is forming as I write it out.

1) Ban account sitting. Period. No player is ever allowed to log into any other payer's account.

2) For tournaments and clan games only, a feature is coded into the site to allow a nominated substitue to take over a game from another player.

3) If a player goes AWOL (and cases of this will be rare, players being in car wrecks or family emergencies or whatever isn't a common occurence) the substitute can permanently take the place of the AWOL player in any and all of that player's clan/tournament games.

4) No player is allowed to be substituted unless either (a) he is within the final hour of a clan/tournament game turn without having logged in during the duration of that turn or (b) he has already missed a turn in a non-clan game.

5) Tournament organisers, when they set up a tournament game, are allowed to put in a maximum of 2 substitues for any team (subject to their own discretion, they may choose to allow only one or none at all) when they send out the invites. If they have restrictions on who can participate in the tournament then obviously they can also enforce that restriction on who can be named as substitutes.

6) Clan war organisers, when they set up clan war games, are allowed to nominate 2 players per game as substitutes when the game is set up.

7) When the conditions are met when an account sit is allowed by these rules, both substitutes automatically receive a game invite, similar to being invited into an unstarted game, to replace whatever player is AWOL. If either of those people accepts the invite, the substitution takes place.

No player is allowed to be a substitute in a game where they are already playing as part of one of the teams.

9) All substitutions are permanent. If the original player comes back he does not take back his place in that game, and he now only has whatever access to the game that any other 3rd party would have, including not being able to see through the fog.

This removes the grey areas, as players can't log in to anyone else's account and do the morally dubious things that would be possible. As soon as a sit takes place it's clearly visible to everyone that the account has been sat and who has taken over. And everything is visible, above board, legal, and without grey areas or loopholes. It also allows clans to agree on the limits of the sitting allowed during the war, and who is allowed to sit for either side.

It's late here, so I may have missed something, but maybe that's a starting point. I have no idea of the coding complexity or anything else, and I am open to improvements on the basic idea.

[Funkyterrance]

You're a moron. As is FunkyTerrance.

Classy.

[Funkyterrance]

OK how about a different solution, and bear with me here because the idea is forming as I write it out.

1) Ban account sitting. Period. No player is ever allowed to log into any other payer's account.

2) For tournaments and clan games only, a feature is coded into the site to allow a nominated substitue to take over a game from another player.

3) If a player goes AWOL (and cases of this will be rare, players being in car wrecks or family emergencies or whatever isn't a common occurence) the substitute can permanently take the place of the AWOL player in any and all of that player's clan/tournament games.

4) No player is allowed to be substituted unless either (a) he is within the final hour of a clan/tournament game turn without having logged in during the duration of that turn or (b) he has already missed a turn in a non-clan game.

5) Tournament organisers, when they set up a tournament game, are allowed to put in a maximum of 2 substitues for any team (subject to their own discretion, they may choose to allow only one or none at all) when they send out the invites. If they have restrictions on who can participate in the tournament then obviously they can also enforce that restriction on who can be named as substitutes.

6) Clan war organisers, when they set up clan war games, are allowed to nominate 2 players per game as substitutes when the game is set up.

7) When the conditions are met when an account sit is allowed by these rules, both substitutes automatically receive a game invite, similar to being invited into an unstarted game, to replace whatever player is AWOL. If either of those people accepts the invite, the substitution takes place.

No player is allowed to be a substitute in a game where they are already playing as part of one of the teams.

9) All substitutions are permanent. If the original player comes back he does not take back his place in that game, and he now only has whatever access to the game that any other 3rd party would have, including not being able to see through the fog.

This removes the grey areas, as players can't log in to anyone else's account and do the morally dubious things that would be possible. As soon as a sit takes place it's clearly visible to everyone that the account has been sat and who has taken over. And everything is visible, above board, legal, and without grey areas or loopholes. It also allows clans to agree on the limits of the sitting allowed during the war, and who is allowed to sit for either side.

It's late here, so I may have missed something, but maybe that's a starting point. I have no idea of the coding complexity or anything else, and I am open to improvements on the basic idea.

I like this idea up until rule number two.
The problem I have with rule 2 is that the substitute comes from clan itself. There are scum out there who would think nothing of making up an excuse like this, it happens all the time in real life when people make excuses so why should it be different on an online game? Lets say someone claims to have had 3 debilitating car crashes in one year. Bs, you say, but it's pretty darn hard to disprove. It's just still too fuzzy.
How about the substitute is someone who works for the site? There could be a group of volunteers whose duty it is to fill in for these games who have no affiliation with any clan. Sully would be a good choice if he were around. I still think that any situation where one clan member is subbing for another is begging for sneaky behavior.