The Official Clan Sitting Rules (Revised Edition)

by **JustCallMeStupid** on Sun Feb 03, 2013 3:10 am

OMG these rules!!!!!! Are so much better than the first ones. I might not like a thing or two about some small parts but seriously, this is much more clear and a bit more reasonable with 2 hours and the option of covering if you are near certain they will miss since it is overnight or maybe work time.

by **chapcrap** on Mon Feb 11, 2013 10:00 pm

qwert wrote:infinity upgrades ,,lol

Pretty much true. But, that's probably how it should be. Rules continuously need updated. I think that no matter what, there are people who won't be happy about some part of the rule. Either it being too strict or not strict enough. In the end, the goal is to legitimize the wars. I think the CDs have done an admirable job here and are obviously staying on the ball.

by **Dako** on Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:33 pm

josko.ri wrote:Legal by clan rules, but abuse by site rules, you know it the best when there is need to point finger in others about breaking rules, but somehow you are missing to realize it when it is about you.
Here is reminder which rule is broken, and it is NOT rule about 2 hour gap.

Rodion wrote:As far as I understand, clan sitting rules did not revoke site-wide sitting rules.

And you do know that "playing turns when the sitee was online in that 24-hour period" is punishable.

I would like to hear an explanation from CD's on that. Looks like we have two sets of rules here and one contradicts another. Which one is correct? And please don't tell me that both are. Right now (it looks like, at least to josko and Rodion) that if you sit for a person legitimately under clan rules then you break site rules which is nonsense.

I always thought that clan sitting rules extend site rules and override them when it comes to clan games. Please enlighten me how we should live in this chaotic world.

by **Rodion** on Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:46 pm

viewtopic.php?p=3980687#p3980687

Foxglove wrote:Edit: Ok - that was perhaps overly dramatic. But really, all of the text in the first post can be summarized thusly: "All normal site account sitting rules apply, with the additional restriction that emergency turns are only allowed within 1 hour. We will subjectively judge, using common-sense, all other account-sitting issues and apply subjective punishment."

Is that correct?

Bruceswar wrote:@ Fox your statement pretty much sums it up.

I believe it is common sense that the Clan Directors (mods) cannot override rules that are under KA's (administrator) jurisdiction. All they can do is create new clan rules that apply as long as they are in compliance with site rules, much like ordinary laws are only valid if they obbey the Constitution.

by **Dako** on Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:01 pm

So what this says is that the person should be away from site for 22h before turns can be played for him?

by **Rodion** on Thu Mar 07, 2013 7:26 pm

It says that sitting is punishable by C&A when breaking site rules and punishable by CDs when breaking clan rules.

I don't think I can make this any clearer.

by **Nicky15** on Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:19 am

Dako wrote:
josko.ri wrote:Legal by clan rules, but abuse by site rules, you know it the best when there is need to point finger in others about breaking rules, but somehow you are missing to realize it when it is about you.
Here is reminder which rule is broken, and it is NOT rule about 2 hour gap.

Rodion wrote:As far as I understand, clan sitting rules did not revoke site-wide sitting rules.

And you do know that "playing turns when the sitee was online in that 24-hour period" is punishable.

I would like to hear an explanation from CD's on that. Looks like we have two sets of rules here and one contradicts another. Which one is correct? And please don't tell me that both are. Right now (it looks like, at least to josko and Rodion) that if you sit for a person legitimately under clan rules then you break site rules which is nonsense.

I always thought that clan sitting rules extend site rules and override them when it comes to clan games. Please enlighten me how we should live in this chaotic world.

We don't have two sets of rules regarding this. When it has been mentioned by the multi hunters in past cases. What they meant was It is against the rules to intentionally leave particular games for account sitters. If the owner deliberately leaves certain games for the sitter. That's account sitting abuse. You may offer emergency sitting when there is a genuine reason for it and not to gain an unfair advantage.

When we mention common sense. We mean that we will look at each sitting case and apply common sense. If the person had a genuine reason for needing emergency cover then we will accept that, if they don't and it happens regularly then we will act. We can spot abuses by looking at a players regular gaming habits, log on times etc. Also we need the rules to factor in today's modern technology. Many people log on in different ways throughout the day. Logging on via a phone to answer a pm doesn't mean you could have taken your turns for example.

I will remind everyone that the CD team work hand in hand with the multi hunter team when dealing with clan sitting abuse cases. We don't have the tools so all investigations go via the MH team. So if it comes under a site rule they will take over. If its sitting we deal with it. Providing emergency cover is not against the rules so long as the turn wasn't left on purpose.