Moderator: Clan Directors
catnipdreams wrote: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.
crispybits wrote:Why - in a clan v clan fight, if both clans agree to use subs and the subs all come from the clans, then it gives the clans control over their own fights.
I could even imagine that on top of the "no individual player may play more than 6 out of 10 games in any set" you would also have "no player is allowed to be named sub in more than 4 of the 10 games in any set" kind of conditions.
If the subs are named in advance it doesnt allow sneakiness because everything is above board and agreed beforehand. If clans rig it so that one person ends up playing all their games and every sub game possible then that's been agreed just fine already. It's up to the clans to police their own wars, this just gives them the tools to do so, and to allow for sits without wrecking their months and months of team play if someone goes off the grid.
IcePack wrote:No way am I allowing third parties to play my games. Sorry.
But no third party is going to care as much about reading pages of chat as yourself, or someone on your team.
Ain't gunna happen.
Foxglove wrote: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.
Couldn't this setup lead to a situation where if a Clan has a star player that is significantly better than the rank and file members that it would be to their (perceived at least) advantage to make sure that player actually ends up subbing in the maximum number of games allowed? IE it encourages them to have some of their lesser members "going missing." Isn't that the exact sort of abuse that any rules would want to prevent?crispybits wrote:Why - in a clan v clan fight, if both clans agree to use subs and the subs all come from the clans, then it gives the clans control over their own fights.
I could even imagine that on top of the "no individual player may play more than 6 out of 10 games in any set" you would also have "no player is allowed to be named sub in more than 4 of the 10 games in any set" kind of conditions.
If the subs are named in advance it doesnt allow sneakiness because everything is above board and agreed beforehand. If clans rig it so that one person ends up playing all their games and every sub game possible then that's been agreed just fine already. It's up to the clans to police their own wars, this just gives them the tools to do so, and to allow for sits without wrecking their months and months of team play if someone goes off the grid.
macbone wrote:The bottom line is we need that sitter feature that's been in the works for a while. Once it's implemented, all players will at least be operating under the same prescribed and enforced guidelines due to the software in place.
Until we do, the rules on p.1 will have to do. I'd still like the time limit to be within 2 hours of the turn's end rather than 1 hour, but I can understand that that might seem like too much of a cushion for some folks.
Silvanus wrote:perch is a North Korean agent to infiltrate south Korean girls
Funkyterrance wrote:I am equally disgruntled with the state of affairs.
The fat bloated clans with the do-or-die stance towards wars, rule-bending, etc. need to unwrap their egos from their online gaming experience. There are certain clans out there that I have much respect for due to their skills combined with integrity. For example: The Pack. I have had the privilege of playing with some of these guys and they are stand-up players. This was way back when I started playing and I was looking for a clan. I played with their leaders and they were not sketchy a bit and I am pretty critical of this sort of thing lol. Nobody told me what to do, we discussed. I'm not meaning to go off on a tangent, just want to make it clear that I'm not irrationally and randomly attacking the more competitive clans, just the ones who smell fishy. It's pretty obvious to someone not completely wrapped up in their clan standing who is dirty and who is not. I don't trust the bloated fatty clans, they didn't get that way playing the straight and narrow. I can't see any other way to make them change than by force since they are obviously blinded by the ambition to win wars.
Funkyterrance wrote:crispybits wrote:Why - in a clan v clan fight, if both clans agree to use subs and the subs all come from the clans, then it gives the clans control over their own fights.
I could even imagine that on top of the "no individual player may play more than 6 out of 10 games in any set" you would also have "no player is allowed to be named sub in more than 4 of the 10 games in any set" kind of conditions.
If the subs are named in advance it doesnt allow sneakiness because everything is above board and agreed beforehand. If clans rig it so that one person ends up playing all their games and every sub game possible then that's been agreed just fine already. It's up to the clans to police their own wars, this just gives them the tools to do so, and to allow for sits without wrecking their months and months of team play if someone goes off the grid.
Cuz: Clan one- Uses subs only when appropriate
Clan two- Uses subs when most advantageous
If the subs are third party there's no issue whatever. Honestly I'm not framing this solely in the context of my own clan but I would like to know which clan really is the best. I'm sick of not caring who the top clans are because at least some of them are corrupt and there's no way of knowing who.
3, Sitting for the purpose of covering an extended break from the site can carry on as normal, turns can be taken whenever it is convenient, the sitter can add to chat, but the player on vacation must not take turns themselves during this time or add to game chat. Account sitting is for holidays, vacations and emergencies only.
BGtheBrain wrote:Being on another player's account for ANY reasons other than taking turns when they are in danger of missing a turn, or posting to necessary Tournament or Clan related public forum topics, is not allowed. Abuse of this privilege can be considered account sharing and could result in a Bust for both accounts.
2, The lines of what is acceptable in the Clan World have become somewhat blurred.
1, The announcing in chat, of the name of the person who has covered a turn will now be mandatory.
london69 wrote:how do i start a clan
Vid_FISO wrote:Before this discussion is taken elsewhere, one suggestion for prolonged sitting that some do at present - "player X is away for several days/ week or two (maybe brief reason added) and I'll be covering his moves in his absence "Player X returns posts "I'm back" and that does the trick for everyone.
Vid_FISO wrote: These rules are for clan sitting but do they encompass an absent player's other games? Are there going to be separate rules for tourney play and other games? Obviously when a player is known to be away for a period then sitters will cover all games, not just clan games. Those that play a lot of varied tourneys can often be playing both with and against a number of clan mates making it impossible for one sitter to cover all games.
HardAttack wrote:One question i have got to ask,
say my team mate is on vacation or some other sort of unavailability, so i m sitter, then if there is a rule or not to tell me when i can take his/her turn as his/her account sitter i am...In other words, if i can take the turn of player i am account sitting in the 1st hour or 23rd hour of 24 hour period...
Thanks in advance.
Nicky15 wrote:Are you going to be your Clans rep in CDF Viso ?
greenoaks wrote:HardAttack wrote:One question i have got to ask,
say my team mate is on vacation or some other sort of unavailability, so i m sitter, then if there is a rule or not to tell me when i can take his/her turn as his/her account sitter i am...In other words, if i can take the turn of player i am account sitting in the 1st hour or 23rd hour of 24 hour period...
Thanks in advance.
if he is on vacation you can take his turns whenever is convenient for you as he will NOT be taking any turns himself for the duration of the vacation
3, Sitting for the purpose of covering an extended break from the site can carry on as normal, turns can be taken whenever it is convenient, the sitter can add to chat, but the player on vacation must not take turns themselves during this time or add to game chat. Account sitting is for holidays, vacations and emergencies only.
Nicky15 wrote:Perhaps I should put in a definition of vacation. The term "vacation" is being used to cover any extended absence from the site where you would require a sitter. Edit I have added a definition to the rules on the 1st page.
greenoaks wrote:Nicky15 wrote:Perhaps I should put in a definition of vacation. The term "vacation" is being used to cover any extended absence from the site where you would require a sitter. Edit I have added a definition to the rules on the 1st page.
what needs to be clarified is a Vacation is not you going on holidays (although it may be). A Vacation is an extended absence from CC.
jetsetwilly wrote:greenoaks wrote:Nicky15 wrote:Perhaps I should put in a definition of vacation. The term "vacation" is being used to cover any extended absence from the site where you would require a sitter. Edit I have added a definition to the rules on the 1st page.
what needs to be clarified is a Vacation is not you going on holidays (although it may be). A Vacation is an extended absence from CC.
That is correct, we don't care if you are in the Bahamas, moving house or stuck in a tree. Any extended period of time during which you can not play the game is a site vacation as it were.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users