Clan Sitting Rules Discussion

[PaulatPeace]

Based on recent events in the CL8 and misunderstandings and different interpretations on what qualifies as Clan Sitting Abuse, I am opening a discussion on this topic. It is my hope the rules may be clarified in this process. It is also my hope that ugly remarks and nasty rhetoric can be avoided here, and sincere discussion for the betterment of the clan world will result.

Below are the 2 main references to "Sitting" as it applies to CC rules on the issue:

[Official] The Clan Sitting Rules

Postby Nicky15 on Sat Jan 26, 2013 9:07 am
Clan members must be responsible for their own turns. Clan members must take all of their own turns unless they need to be away from the site for a period of time. Or an emergency arises.

Basic Rules

1. The announcing in chat, of the name of the person who has covered a turn will now be mandatory.

2. You may appoint an account sitter If you need to be away from the site. Your sitter can take your turns whenever it is convenient for them, your sitter can add to chat whilst covering your account. You may have more than one sitter if you require it. Your sitter should announce in chat that you are away and give an approximate time frame for your return. If you need an account sitter then you should not take turns yourself.

3. Emergency cover may be given if the person is in danger of missing a turn. A person will be in danger of missing a turn when:

a, There is less than 2 hours on the clock
b, When their turn expires at a time when they are not usually online. For example It is in the middle of the night their time, or if they do not take turns during work hours.

Guidance
Emergency cover is for when you have not directly been asked to sit by the person when there is less than 2 hours on the clock or when their turn expires at a time when they are usually not online.
For example. You may cover all turns that will expire in the middle of the night their time, until they would usually be online in the morning. Or if they do not take turns during work hours, you may cover all turns that would expire before they got home.
This rule will not cover all circumstances. We will look at every issue with common sense. If you have a legitimate reason for breaking the 2 hour rule and you post to say you have done so, you will not get into any trouble. However if you break the two hour rule, or take a turn at less than two hours you must be certain that the person will miss. The person in question must not have been online recently taking their own turns. If you regularly cover turns in an unnecessary time frame, and the person subsequently comes online in that time frame, you will be guilty of account sharing

4. 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. If you are going to participate in clan games, it should be you who will actually play in these games.

5. You must not be in another persons account for any reason, other than to cover turns during a prearranged sit, or in an emergency situation. Adding to chat in a game you are not in for example will not be allowed. You must also not give permission for anyone to wander in and out of your account at their will. Take care of your account. What happens with it is your responsibility.


In response to the idea that people will just cheat anyway, the hunters will routinely check IPs, and assist us in checking suspicious activity abusing the account sitting rule.

Punishments

Anyone caught breaking these rules will be subject to penalties as determined at the sole discretion of the CD Team. Penalties may include loss of privileges, loss of medals, forfeiture of games, and any other punishment the CD Team deems appropriate.The CD team will take a common sense approach when ruling on each individual case.

C&A Forum Violation Guide, Updates & how to file a report
Postby king achilles on Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:21 pm

Also this:
Can I let another player take a turn for me when I am away from the game?

You can, with the stipulation that the account babysitter is not your opponent in any current game. It is common courtesy to announce in game chat that another player will take your turn(s) during your absence. Babysitters should only do what is necessary to take the turn(s) and should not interact with the community, start or join new games (except for ongoing tournaments). Furthermore, you should only take another player's turn if they are in danger of missing a turn, not for the purpose of gaining a tactical advantage.

From what I read, The Clan Sitting Rules defines Emergency Cover or Sitting as "Emergency cover may be given if the person is in danger of missing a turn.". It also then clarifies this definition with 2 examples: "A person will be in danger of missing a turn when: a, There is less than 2 hours on the clock, b, When their turn expires at a time when they are not usually online. For example It is in the middle of the night their time, or if they do not take turns during work hours.". It goes on to say "The person in question must not have been online recently taking their own turns." I'm sure almost everyone will agree that 2 or 3 hours passing since someone has been online taking their turns does not qualify as "recent".

This entry from KA says "Furthermore, you should only take another player's turn if they are in danger of missing a turn, not for the purpose of gaining a tactical advantage."

So I would like to begin this discussion by asking this question: If Player A (an experienced player) is waiting on clarification from his teammates on how to best make his next move and has to take off to work. Player A is now at work & 2 - 3 hrs pass. Player A is not able to take off from work to play his turn and the time runs down to 32 minutes before his turn expires. Player B, sees his clanmate is in danger of missing his turn and is clearly under the 2 hrs needed to qualify for emergency sitting. Player B takes Player A's turn and announces it in chat. Where is the violation of the rules, & what tactical advantage has been gained?

Paul

[iAmCaffeine]

I agree.

[PaulatPeace]

A new version of the Sitting Rules is currently being drafted in order to bring more clarity to the matter.

That is good Keith! I hope the people drafting it have representatives from every clan!

I agree there is a dire need for clarity....and to be honest...a complete change in the wording. This need for clarity has existed for a while now...but it doesn't rectify the wrong that has been done to us! I know you will say no wrong has been done...but the need for clarity itself verifies it has indeed!

To assist me in understanding your view...kindly help by answering my question above based on the current wording in the Rules:

So I would like to begin this discussion by asking this question: If Player A (an experienced player) is waiting on clarification from his teammates on how to best make his next move and has to take off to work. Player A is now at work & 2 - 3 hrs pass. Player A is not able to take off from work to play his turn and the time runs down to 32 minutes before his turn expires. Player B, sees his clanmate is in danger of missing his turn and is clearly under the 2 hrs needed to qualify for emergency sitting. Player B takes Player A's turn and announces it in chat. Where is the violation of the rules, & what tactical advantage has been gained?

Paul

[josko.ri]

This entry from KA says "Furthermore, you should only take another player's turn if they are in danger of missing a turn, not for the purpose of gaining a tactical advantage."

So I would like to begin this discussion by asking this question: If Player A (an experienced player) is waiting on clarification from his teammates on how to best make his next move and has to take off to work. Player A is now at work & 2 - 3 hrs pass. Player A is not able to take off from work to play his turn and the time runs down to 32 minutes before his turn expires. Player B, sees his clanmate is in danger of missing his turn and is clearly under the 2 hrs needed to qualify for emergency sitting. Player B takes Player A's turn and announces it in chat. Where is the violation of the rules, & what tactical advantage has been gained?

Paul[/b]

The violation of rules are because Player A had only 3 hours before the miss when he INTENTIONALLY left the turn to be sat by more experienced player in order to get strategical advantage.
If he has only 3 hours left on the turn and need to leave for the work (and at the same time plays 16 other turns) then he could also take the 17th turn even though the turn was not yet discussed in deep. As you said player A is an experienced player so he can take the turn by himself without player B telling him what to do, but player A intentionally didn't play his turn when there was only 3 hours left on the timer and the turn was later played by team leader and player B who is 5 times more experienced on given map than player A. That is taking unproper strategical advantage from the sitting tool.

Why player A did not take his turn with 3 hours left on timer, when he had known that he will be on work for the next 3 hours and will not be able to play his turn?

[PaulatPeace]

This entry from KA says "Furthermore, you should only take another player's turn if they are in danger of missing a turn, not for the purpose of gaining a tactical advantage."

So I would like to begin this discussion by asking this question: If Player A (an experienced player) is waiting on clarification from his teammates on how to best make his next move and has to take off to work. Player A is now at work & 2 - 3 hrs pass. Player A is not able to take off from work to play his turn and the time runs down to 32 minutes before his turn expires. Player B, sees his clanmate is in danger of missing his turn and is clearly under the 2 hrs needed to qualify for emergency sitting. Player B takes Player A's turn and announces it in chat. Where is the violation of the rules, & what tactical advantage has been gained?

Paul[/b]

The violation of rules are because Player A had only 3 hours before the miss when he INTENTIONALLY left the turn to be sat by more experienced player in order to get strategical advantage. First of all....you do not know Player A's intention....you are merely assuming you do! Secondly, there is nothing in the Clan Sitting Rules saying a player must take their turn by a certain time during the 24 hrs. Third, both players are at about the same skill level on the map, & fourth, there is no strategic advantage for Player B to take the same turn Player A would have taken if he could. Your reasoning is flawed!
If he has only 3 hours left on the turn and need to leave for the work (and at the same time plays 16 other turns) then he could also take the 17th turn even though the turn was not yet discussed in deep. It is Player A's right to decide to take the turn or not...and he doesn't need you to tell him what he should do! If he decides to wait to take it later, that is his perrogative! you said player A is an experienced player so he can take the turn by himself without player B telling him what to do, but player A intentionally didn't play his turn when there was only 3 hours left on the timer and the turn was later played by team leader and player B who is 5 times more experienced on given map than player A. That is taking unproper strategical advantage from the sitting tool. Again, you make several assumptions you have no basis in fact for. You do not know anyone's intention and you do not know that the turn taken by Player B was any different that it would have been if taken by Player A! There is no strategic advantage gained here! The only Strategic Advantage gained.....is by the whiny brat who makes a big stink about the whole thing in order to have his team win a game they were loosing! Now THAT is an unfair Strategic Advantage for a clan leader who doesn't have enough confidence his players can win fairly!

Why player A did not take his turn with 3 hours left on timer, when he had known that he will be on work for the next 3 hours and will not be able to play his turn? You do not know he could not take his turn! Maybe he didn't know either. Maybe he might have been able to if the right circumstances presented themselves at work. You just don't know! And there lies the heart of the issue. YOU don't know! You are simply making presumptions based on your own experience of having your hands smacked when you acted improperly. Just because you cheated doesn't mean everyone else does!

[IcePack]

A new version of the Sitting Rules is currently being drafted in order to bring more clarity to the matter.

That is good Keith! I hope the people drafting it have representatives from every clan!

I agree there is a dire need for clarity....and to be honest...a complete change in the wording. This need for clarity has existed for a while now...but it doesn't rectify the wrong that has been done to us! I know you will say no wrong has been done...but the need for clarity itself verifies it has indeed!

To assist me in understanding your view...kindly help by answering my question above based on the current wording in the Rules:

So I would like to begin this discussion by asking this question: If Player A (an experienced player) is waiting on clarification from his teammates on how to best make his next move and has to take off to work. Player A is now at work & 2 - 3 hrs pass. Player A is not able to take off from work to play his turn and the time runs down to 32 minutes before his turn expires. Player B, sees his clanmate is in danger of missing his turn and is clearly under the 2 hrs needed to qualify for emergency sitting. Player B takes Player A's turn and announces it in chat. Where is the violation of the rules, & what tactical advantage has been gained?

Paul

Just to be clear, theres a proposal to look into drafting additional sitting guidelines. Clan representatives dont really have a "say" in what the sitting rules are, these are guided by the admin as to what is and isn't acceptable on the site. So that expectation isn't really one based in reality. Clan sitting rules in general have been in place for several years (2013) and site guidelines have been there long before that. Every player on the site needs to abide by the site sitting rules, not just clans. Clans just have additional more specific requirements (like posting in the games, etc) that go above and beyond the site guidelines.

The answer to your question was already provided to you in my PM regarding the sitting abuse case. As Keefie isn't the head for displinary actions on the team, its unlikely you are going to get a different answer then the one you've already been provided.

[PaulatPeace]

A new version of the Sitting Rules is currently being drafted in order to bring more clarity to the matter.

That is good Keith! I hope the people drafting it have representatives from every clan!

I agree there is a dire need for clarity....and to be honest...a complete change in the wording. This need for clarity has existed for a while now...but it doesn't rectify the wrong that has been done to us! I know you will say no wrong has been done...but the need for clarity itself verifies it has indeed!

To assist me in understanding your view...kindly help by answering my question above based on the current wording in the Rules:

So I would like to begin this discussion by asking this question: If Player A (an experienced player) is waiting on clarification from his teammates on how to best make his next move and has to take off to work. Player A is now at work & 2 - 3 hrs pass. Player A is not able to take off from work to play his turn and the time runs down to 32 minutes before his turn expires. Player B, sees his clanmate is in danger of missing his turn and is clearly under the 2 hrs needed to qualify for emergency sitting. Player B takes Player A's turn and announces it in chat. Where is the violation of the rules, & what tactical advantage has been gained?

Paul

Just to be clear, theres a proposal to look into drafting additional sitting guidelines. Clan representatives dont really have a "say" in what the sitting rules are, these are guided by the admin as to what is and isn't acceptable on the site. Just to be clear...Clan Representatives should have a "say" what the Clan Sitting Rules are! They are currently very different from the site rules and again...are in need of clarification as Keith said! Since the Clan Department makes rulings based in the Clan Sitting Rules, and these Rules affect all clan members, they should be decided by the Clan Representatives! So that expectation isn't really one based in reality. Clan sitting rules in general have been in place for several years (2013) and site guidelines have been there long before that. Every player on the site needs to abide by the site sitting rules, not just clans. Clans just have additional more specific requirements (like posting in the games, etc) that go above and beyond the site guidelines.

The answer to your question was already provided to you in my PM regarding the sitting abuse case. As Keefie isn't the head for displinary actions on the team, its unlikely you are going to get a different answer then the one you've already been provided. Your answer was inappropriate & without basis in merit! And ya know something....I wasn't asking you! The question was intended originally for all the other members of the clan world who wished to participate in this discussion.

[josko.ri]

Why player A did not take his turn with 3 hours left on timer, when he had known that he will be on work for the next 3 hours and will not be able to play his turn? You do not know he could not take his turn! Maybe he didn't know either. Maybe he might have been able to if the right circumstances presented themselves at work. You just don't know! And there lies the heart of the issue. YOU don't know!

Your profile info says that you are pursuing enlightenment. So can you enlighten me and tell me why didn't your player play the Usa 2.1 with 3 hours left on timer, when at the same time he played 16 other turns? As you said I don't know, so can you tell me and enlighten me? I really want to know.

And IcePack said well, FreeFalling123 broke general site rules, not clan rules. General site rules are stronger than clan rules.

Also, when I had broken these rules, at that time I was punished for breaking something which was not written anywhere so I can say I was punished for something which was not declared in rules. At this time, it is already written in rules as part of rulings against me, Chariot of Fire and freakns so you are punished for doing something for which there are already recorded past cases doing that. Unlike me, you could learn on mistakes from others yet you didn't.

[Lex Usi]

Why player A did not take his turn with 3 hours left on timer, when he had known that he will be on work for the next 3 hours and will not be able to play his turn? You do not know he could not take his turn! Maybe he didn't know either. Maybe he might have been able to if the right circumstances presented themselves at work. You just don't know! And there lies the heart of the issue. YOU don't know!

Your profile info says that you are pursuing enlightenment. So can you enlighten me and tell me why didn't your player play the Usa 2.1 with 3 hours left on timer, when at the same time he played 16 other turns? As you said I don't know, so can you tell me and enlighten me? I really want to know.

And IcePack said well, FreeFalling123 broke general site rules, not clan rules. General site rules are stronger than clan rules.

josko.ri, perhaps you are one of those McGyver types that can do anything. Or maybe you are ignorant on purpose. I choose to believe that you are not dumb.

Anyhow, for the sake of enlighting you. One can take 20 turns on a small map with several rounds on their belts much quicker than one can take an opening turn on a very large map like USA 2.1. If it was me with only 3 hours left for some reason, an extreme situation, I could see myself taking the 20 turns of my personal wars because there is no sitter in place for those and leave the clan game for the group of sitters in the clan. I would of course send message one way or another that I wasn't able to take the turn in the clan game to the group of sitters.

Doing all the above I would feel that I've done everything by the book.

[IcePack]

Why player A did not take his turn with 3 hours left on timer, when he had known that he will be on work for the next 3 hours and will not be able to play his turn? You do not know he could not take his turn! Maybe he didn't know either. Maybe he might have been able to if the right circumstances presented themselves at work. You just don't know! And there lies the heart of the issue. YOU don't know!

Your profile info says that you are pursuing enlightenment. So can you enlighten me and tell me why didn't your player play the Usa 2.1 with 3 hours left on timer, when at the same time he played 16 other turns? As you said I don't know, so can you tell me and enlighten me? I really want to know.

And IcePack said well, FreeFalling123 broke general site rules, not clan rules. General site rules are stronger than clan rules.

josko.ri, perhaps you are one of those McGyver types that can do anything. Or maybe you are ignorant on purpose. I choose to believe that you are not dumb.

Anyhow, for the sake of enlighting you. One can take 20 turns on a small map with several rounds on their belts much quicker than one can take an opening turn on a very large map like USA 2.1. If it was me with only 3 hours left for some reason, an extreme situation, I could see myself taking the 20 turns of my personal wars because there is no sitter in place for those and leave the clan game for the group of sitters in the clan. I would of course send message one way or another that I wasn't able to take the turn in the clan game to the group of sitters.

Doing all the above I would feel that I've done everything by the book.

There are a lot of "theorectical" reasons why someone may or may not do something. However the actions taken by TeamCC were based off actual facts, and not theoretical maybes.

Also, per the rules:

The person in question must not have been online recently taking their own turns.

So if you are taking 20 turns on your own and leaving clan turns for sitters, thats not within the guidelines. Same with leaving it for sitters because someone hasn't left any instrucitons in the game, that is also not within the guidelines. Not having instructions in game chat is not considered an emergency. Neither is that the game is a large non small map.
For example, "during work hours" is listed in the guideance, but you also have to look at it from the "unless the player was recently online to take their own turns" perspective.
The rules also say:

If you need an account sitter then you should not take turns yourself.

So saying that you can take 20 turns on a small map but leave clan war games for sitters is also not within the guidelines.
Emergency coverage does not mean "emergency for clan games only" or "emergency for one specific game because its a big map". If you can't cover your own games, you shouldn't be taking that many.

Clan sitting rules are meant to be stricter then site guidelines, to ensure that as much as possible the player is taking their own turns. Not their own turns only if there are notes, etc. If you dont have notes but can't take the turn later, you need to take the turn without notes for your own accounts sake. If you were recently online, and left a game because you were hoping notes would come then sitters should NOT be taking the turn as this does NOT constitute an emergency.

Emergencies do arise for everyone from time to time. Nobody is arguing that. Saying that emergencies arise multiple times per day every day of the week, and "emergency" seems to become "standard practice" as opposed to what the rules truly are meant to be covering.

[josko.ri]

Why player A did not take his turn with 3 hours left on timer, when he had known that he will be on work for the next 3 hours and will not be able to play his turn? You do not know he could not take his turn! Maybe he didn't know either. Maybe he might have been able to if the right circumstances presented themselves at work. You just don't know! And there lies the heart of the issue. YOU don't know!

Your profile info says that you are pursuing enlightenment. So can you enlighten me and tell me why didn't your player play the Usa 2.1 with 3 hours left on timer, when at the same time he played 16 other turns? As you said I don't know, so can you tell me and enlighten me? I really want to know.

And IcePack said well, FreeFalling123 broke general site rules, not clan rules. General site rules are stronger than clan rules.

josko.ri, perhaps you are one of those McGyver types that can do anything. Or maybe you are ignorant on purpose. I choose to believe that you are not dumb.

Anyhow, for the sake of enlighting you. One can take 20 turns on a small map with several rounds on their belts much quicker than one can take an opening turn on a very large map like USA 2.1. If it was me with only 3 hours left for some reason, an extreme situation, I could see myself taking the 20 turns of my personal wars because there is no sitter in place for those and leave the clan game for the group of sitters in the clan. I would of course send message one way or another that I wasn't able to take the turn in the clan game to the group of sitters.

Doing all the above I would feel that I've done everything by the book.

The underlined part was obviously done by nibotha. But it is against site rules which says that "turn need to be taken if the owner had a chance to take the turn by himself". (quoted for the case versus Chariot of fire and Pedronicus)

Furthermore, the turn sat by FreeFalling for nibotha in the Usa 2.1 game lasted less than 2 minutes. So it is not that the turn was so demanding to play time-wise. At the same time, nibotha took a turn with 23 hours left on timer in Game 17126537 and the turn lasted more than 2 minutes. So the turn in Usa 2.1 had 3 hours left on timer and lasted less than 2 minutes (when played by FreeFalling123) while the turn in Game 17126537 had 23 hours left on timer and lasted more than 2 minutes. Therefore, there was less time needed to play the Usa 2.1 turn which (in addition) had 3 hours left on timer, but nibotha chose to play longer turn on Classic map which had 23 hours left on timer.

If he didn't have enough time to play all turns then logically he should first play turns with 3 hours left on timer nad lastly play turns with 23 hours left on timer yet he didn't do that but he chose to leave the Usa 2.1 turn to 5 times more experiened sitter on Usa 2.1 map, therefore gaining significant strategical advantage to his team.

Also, great post by IcePack, well explained

[iAmCaffeine]

I agree.

[PaulatPeace]

"What we have here is a failure to communicate!"

What we have here is set of "Rules" that are vague and not as clear as need be to enforce certain individual interpretations!

I have read the Clan Sitting Rules and the Site Rules over and over and over....trying to see them from different perspectives. I can see that there is a need to rewrite them so they are clearer, as has been said is currently being done. There is also one very clear FACT that some here are not able to see! Your interpretation of the existing rules may not be the same as someone else's! This does not mean either person is wrong....but it does mean that your judgement of someone else's actions are skewed by your perspective!

Basic Rules

1. The announcing in chat, of the name of the person who has covered a turn will now be mandatory.

2. You may appoint an account sitter If you need to be away from the site. Your sitter can take your turns whenever it is convenient for them, your sitter can add to chat whilst covering your account. You may have more than one sitter if you require it. Your sitter should announce in chat that you are away and give an approximate time frame for your return. If you need an account sitter then you should not take turns yourself.

3. Emergency cover may be given if the person is in danger of missing a turn. A person will be in danger of missing a turn when:

a, There is less than 2 hours on the clock
b, When their turn expires at a time when they are not usually online. For example It is in the middle of the night their time, or if they do not take turns during work hours.

I have read these rules....and I strongly believe FreeFalling123 and nibotha followed them completely!

The person in question must not have been online recently taking their own turns.

Nibotha had not been online for several hours when his turn was taken for him! No rule is broken here!

If you need an account sitter then you should not take turns yourself.

Nibotha did not take any turns within several hours of the turn being taken for him and he did need an account sitter. No rule is broken here!

Furthermore, you should only take another player's turn if they are in danger of missing a turn, not for the purpose of gaining a tactical advantage.

Nibotha was indeed in danger of missing a turn! Tactical advantage never came into play. No rule was broken!

You can argue all day whether or not you feel someone's intentions were justified or not.....but the "Rules" do not require "intentions" to be justified! They specifically give parameters which were clearly met by both FreeFalling123 & nibotha. Speculate all you want. Examine theoretical motive all you want. They are not mentioned in the "Rules" as they are currently written. We must go by the rules as they are written....not someone's personal interpretation of them!

Paul

[josko.ri]

I have read these rules....and I strongly believe FreeFalling123 and nibotha followed them completely!

The person in question must not have been online recently taking their own turns.

Nibotha had not been online for several hours when his turn was taken for him! No rule is broken here!

If you need an account sitter then you should not take turns yourself.

Nibotha did not take any turns within several hours of the turn being taken for him and he did need an account sitter. No rule is broken here!

nibotha took 16 other turns 2.30 hours before FreeFalling sat for him. That means he was VERY available to play the Usa 2.1 turn as well. He played some turns with 23 hours left on timer but at the same time he did not play the Usa 2.1 turn with 3 hours left on timer. I don't know what does "several" mean to you but 2.5 hours surely falls into category "several" hours. Therefore, you are telling wrong information when you say that he had not been online for several hours when his turn was taken for him.

[IcePack]

Except it's the site providing the rules and have clarified those rules within C&A cases. It's not someone's "personal interpretation" but the SITES interpretation of what's allowed and what is not.

I understand your personal interpretation of the rules is that nothing was done wrongly, but it's the sites view that matters.

[PaulatPeace]

I have read these rules....and I strongly believe FreeFalling123 and nibotha followed them completely!

The person in question must not have been online recently taking their own turns.

Nibotha had not been online for several hours when his turn was taken for him! No rule is broken here!

If you need an account sitter then you should not take turns yourself.

Nibotha did not take any turns within several hours of the turn being taken for him and he did need an account sitter. No rule is broken here!

nibotha took 16 other turns 2.30 hours before FreeFalling sat for him. That means he was VERY available to play the Usa 2.1 turn as well. He played some turns with 23 hours left on timer but at the same time he did not play the Usa 2.1 turn with 3 hours left on timer. I don't know what does "several" mean to you but 2.5 hours surely falls into category "several" hours. Therefore, you are telling wrong information when you say that he had not been online for several hours when his turn was taken for him.

Again...a failure to communicate. You said you would like to be enlightened Josko. First you must be open to enlightenment!

"Several" is defined in the dictionary as:

a : more than one
b : more than two but fewer than many

I said:

Nibotha had not been online for several hours when his turn was taken for him! No rule is broken here!

Perhaps you did not understand what I was saying! I will say again:

Nibotha had not been online for several hours when his turn was taken for him!

This is a true statement!

A player is "available" to take a turn....it does not mean he "must" take that turn at any specific time. Nowhere does it say this in the rules. YOU may feel he "should" take his turn at a certain time.........but you do not have the right to tell someone else what they must do! You may choose for yourself the appropriate time...that is your choice...but you cannot dictate that to someone else!


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by IcePack on Wed Jan 25, 2017 12:44 pm

Except it's the site providing the rules and have clarified those rules within C&A cases. It's not someone's "personal interpretation" but the SITES interpretation of what's allowed and what is not.

I understand your personal interpretation of the rules is that nothing was done wrongly, but it's the sites view that matters.

You are clearly misguided here IcePack! A "site cannot have an "interpretation"! A "site" cannot have a view. A "site" can state "rules" to be adhered to......but those "rules" are then "interpreted" by people such as yourself......and me, and FreeFalling and nibotha. What you are refusing to recognize is that it is your interpretation that is guiding your decision......and that interpretation is based on rules that are vague and unclear.....otherwise they would not need to be rewritten...as they currently are!

If individual C&A cases have "clarified" certain rules......then those rules should have been modified to reflect those "clarifications! It is as simple as that. The rules were not clarified....but you are handing down verdicts which will affect people's lives and the success of entire clans based on your interpretation of the current rules....from your knowledge of individual C&A cases that many of the rest of us are not even aware of...and have not resulted in any modification to the existing rules! This is unjust! I honestly do not know why this logic escapes you. Open your eyes. The world does not revolve simply around your perspective!

Paul

[IcePack]

#1 - it's not "my" interpretation. The world doesn't revolve around my perspective or interpretation of site rules. But I didn't interpret anything. I didn't rule on the sitting case as has already been stated. I don't have the tools to verify anything. Admins rule on sitting abuse cases and consult me if there's any question about the clan sitting rules (as they focus primarily on site rules not clans).

#2 - again the rules aren't currently being updated. i explained / clarified that Keefie misspoke. There's a proposal being considered to look into an update that's been on my radar for 6-12 months or so. But there's no official rule change occurring ATM. If your CDF rep has suggestions on how to clarify it, happy to consider those there if we do look at an update in the future.

#3 - I don't control when the site updates their rule books or don't. We have cases that have come up in the past that provided those clarifications. As a site member (not clans) everyone has had to follow the same rules for years. It's been well discussed and very well known in general what's allowed and what's not. As long time members of the site I'm surprised if someone is totally oblivious to the site sitting rules, but even so that's what the "warning & education" is for on first time offenses.

Second time offenses, the person should already know better and therefore no longer come with a warning. Again, that's a site rule, not clan rule. It's an important distinction.

If you have suggestions for the site on how they should update site rules (as opposed to clan rules) then there's a suggestions section of the forum for that.

[Keefie]

I have to own up to a blooper here.

I confused a conversation the CD team had a while back with a concrete plan to update a few things including the sitting rules. I deleted my post after a few minutes, as soon as I realised my error. It was unfortunate that Paul had already quoted me and must have been typing a reply when I did that delete.

[Lex Usi]

Thank you IcePack for clarifying the rules to some extent. But is what you are saying your personal interpretation of the rules or something more? I mean, what is "recently" and who determines that? Is it minutes or hours or is it slightly less than 24 hours?

You also point out that if one needs account sitter,then one shouldn't take turns him/herself. In this case there was some 30 min left on the clock when sitter took the turn. Did nibotha play any turns during the 30 minutes after Freefalling123 had taken nibothas turn for him? I don't know, but I'm sure josko.ri has time to look into it. This is interesting because one can not always know beforehand if one needs a sitter or not. That is because emergencies arise. However one does know when someone had covered his/hers turn. So after the "sitting" it would be appropriate not to take turns for "some time". What is "some time" then? One can argue that in this case it would've been ok for nibotha to take turns in other games approximately 30 minutes after the turn on USA 2.1. map expired because that would prove he was not able to take the turn in question.

Rules can't be something which can be interpreted multiple ways. They should not be debatable. If either of these happen then the rules must either be clarified or changed. I have also read the points of the rules which Paul has kindly quoted here. What happened with this instance was clearly within the rules. Of that part of the rules that actually state any definitives (with only 2 hours remaining). Some might argue that nibotha took turns on his own "recently" and "recently" isn't a definitive.That should be changed. For some, 3 hours is recently and for some 10 minutes is recently.

As long as rules are vague and questionable NOBODY should be penalized. It is just an injustice. One could accept a warning that not everything was done 100% according to current guidance's and a notice that those in power will immediately take it on themselves to clarify the rules. If that happened it would've been the last time the parties in question had done what they did and therefore sufficient.

Remaking a game because of this incident is beyond extreme. That decision smells like someone has prejudice against the penalized party. Even if you consider the sitting incident which happened as intentional braking of the rules (which I am 100% it wasn't), how would that justify the remake of a quad game. A team takes maybe 100 turns on that map before it is finished. One of the turns (a 2 minute turn as josko.ri has found out) was arguably taken against the rules (by the wrong member of the same team). That means 1% of the turns was arguably taken against the rules. And that justifies the remake? Is there anybody else there that actually think that having arguably (by josko.ri) a better player taking one turn of arguably (by josko.ri) a lesser player in a quad game constitutes a significant strategical advantage?

josko.ri has brought to our attention some case examples from Chariot of fire and Pedronicus. Perhaps previous examples from an era unknown to me are of interest to some players on this site. That as well as the incident josko.ri has been previously involved in may be found from the forum. But that is irrelevant. Reading the rules should be sufficient for all players. Reading case examples from distant past probably isn't what most players are here for. I'm here to have fun mainly and to play the game.

[Vid_FISO]

What do you find that is so complicated?

A player logs on plays all his turns except one and goes offline knowing full well that he won't be able to play the turn but that someone else will make a decision about his turn that he is unable/ unwilling to make by himself. The options are to 1) make his own decision and play the move before logging off or 2) log off and miss a move, not rely on someone else to make a decision and play the move for him.

[josko.ri]

Very well said vid_Fiso.

I think the verdict was not done based on a single abuse case but rather because they found that Freefalling did it over extended period of time and for many players repeatedly.

As for Usa 2.1 game , we did not ask for replay after sitting for nibotha but we asked for replay after two consecutive illegal sittings for nibotha and jaybrake in only one round. Jaybrake was also online earlier that day when he could play his turn. That made the situation that 3 of 4 opening turns were played solely by Freefalling and we felt it is enough to say that huge strategical advantage was already taken and the game needs to be replayed. So Lex Usi you should calculate into account that 75% or round 1 turns were played by team leader who played that map double times more than other 3 players from the team combined so therefore he brought significant strategical advantage to TOP team.

[PaulatPeace]

#1 - it's not "my" interpretation. The world doesn't revolve around my perspective or interpretation of site rules. But I didn't interpret anything. I didn't rule on the sitting case as has already been stated. I don't have the tools to verify anything. Admins rule on sitting abuse cases and consult me if there's any question about the clan sitting rules (as they focus primarily on site rules not clans). You clearly have interpreted the rules...and have your own personal bias! You DID make a ruling on the sitting case! Kindly do not insult my intelligence or that of everyone else who knows you did! There was Never a C&A report filed concerning this case. You have only told me you referred this to KA. (By the way KA has told us he was letting the Clan Department handle this.) TOP, FreeFalling123 & nibotha were never given an opportunity to defend ourselves to KA whatsoever! Additionally, you told me yourself that you had reached a "Verdict" & that you would be referring your information to Lindax, who then ultimately made his own personal judgements in his interpretation of the rules, even though you felt only a Warning needed to be imposed! The point here is You, Lindax and possibly KA ALL made decisions based on your interpretation of rules that are vague and unclear! Even you admitted "the claims made were inconclusive", "intent here overall is hard to prove" & " likely was not to intentionally circumvent the site or clan sitting rules." Additionally, you commented "Ultimately we will consider this a "educational" experience and ultimately just warn". If it had been left at that, we could have lived with a warning, even though we felt it was unjustified. But it has now been taken much farther than that....and it never should have been!

#2 - again the rules aren't currently being updated. i explained / clarified that Keefie misspoke. There's a proposal being considered to look into an update that's been on my radar for 6-12 months or so. But there's no official rule change occurring ATM. If your CDF rep has suggestions on how to clarify it, happy to consider those there if we do look at an update in the future. I am sorry Keith misspoke! But there clearly has been grave concern that the "Rules on Sitting" need to be clarified and changed! That is my point! The needed to have been clarified and changed...but they weren't! Based on the current rules...we have broken none of them!

#3 - I don't control when the site updates their rule books or don't. We have cases that have come up in the past that provided those clarifications. As a site member (not clans) everyone has had to follow the same rules for years. It's been well discussed and very well known in general what's allowed and what's not. As long time members of the site I'm surprised if someone is totally oblivious to the site sitting rules, but even so that's what the "warning & education" is for on first time offenses. You admitted to me yourself that the "Site" sitting rules were not easy to find when I requested from you where they were! Even so...the site rules and the Clan rules regarding sitting have NOT been violated as they are currently written. You are citing previous precedents which you feel may have some impact on the current rules. This is not the same as the rule itself, which is what should be referred to. Things may have been "well discussed and very well known in general" by many of you who have been examining details of clan issues for a long time now. But we did not know these things, and it is unreasonable to expect or assume we would know them! FreeFalling 123 did not commit an infraction this time. He did indeed learn from the past......and did violate any sitting rule as currently written. nibotha did not violate any current rule either! There is no guilt or intention of wrong doing here! From everything you are saying....we were supposed to read the minds of those individuals who will someday rewrite the sitting rules for more clarification!

Second time offenses, the person should already know better and therefore no longer come with a warning. Again, that's a site rule, not clan rule. It's an important distinction. No violation of the current rules was made!!!!! Therefore, no second offense was committed! That my dear fellow is THE important distinction!!!

If you have suggestions for the site on how they should update site rules (as opposed to clan rules) then there's a suggestions section of the forum for that.

The only suggestion I have now....is that you examine you conscience thoroughly. You and Lindax are guilty of allowing your personal bias to warp your judgement! Rational examination of the issue would tell you this!

Paul

[IcePack]

Thank you IcePack for clarifying the rules to some extent. But is what you are saying your personal interpretation of the rules or something more? I mean, what is "recently" and who determines that? Is it minutes or hours or is it slightly less than 24 hours?

As long as rules are vague and questionable NOBODY should be penalized. It is just an injustice. One could accept a warning that not everything was done 100% according to current guidance's and a notice that those in power will immediately take it on themselves to clarify the rules. If that happened it would've been the last time the parties in question had done what they did and therefore sufficient.

josko.ri has brought to our attention some case examples from Chariot of fire and Pedronicus. Perhaps previous examples from an era unknown to me are of interest to some players on this site. That as well as the incident josko.ri has been previously involved in may be found from the forum. But that is irrelevant. Reading the rules should be sufficient for all players. Reading case examples from distant past probably isn't what most players are here for. I'm here to have fun mainly and to play the game.

Wow, so many points here Lex. I don't know where to start.

These are not my personal interpretation of the rules. I already stated that I wasn't part of the sitting abuse case verdict other than to provide assistance on clan rules (which didn't come up, because the findings were that the abuse fell under site rules, not even considering more stringent clan rules).

In fact, the more I "personally" look into it, the more I wonder how much TOP is really getting away with here. So if you ask me personally, I would say:
TOP has 32 members, with an average account age of 6.7 years I think
2006 - 1
2007 - 2
2008 - 5
2009 - 2
2010 - 4
2011 - 11
2012 - 3
2013 - 2
2014 - 2

TOP has no members with accounts less than 3 years old. Meaning, even though TOP players are new to clans and clan sitting rules, they have still been playing under the site rules for a combined 215 years of experience on this site, if I've done my math right. You're telling me nobody knew the sitting rules before hand? (the site ones, not clans)

The warning / education given to TOP was due to newness to the clan area, so that everyone can be on the same page etc. and it was their first offense. However after further research I find multiple members of TOP had prior account sitting abuse cases already. So multiple members within TOP have already been educated and been through account sitting issues in the past. Meaning, they should be well aware of the site rules.

Now we (the clan team) have control over the clan rules, and making sure they are clear etc however the site has their own set of rules and we have no authority or ability to change those. Again, if you disagree with site sitting rules perhaps your clan can go make a suggestion over here regarding that.

Remaking of a single game with warnings is not extreme when you consider the site views this as a "major" infraction and after 3 instances will consider permabanning your account. So they take this very, very seriously. The admin here stated the amount of coverage was "excessive" compared to other clans. Nobody wants to go through TOP's 205 game history and go game by game researching their 2-3 year history. So we error on the side of "inconclusive" and try to educate the group as opposed to punish for everyone who was a first time offense. Considering it was considered "excessive" it could have easily prompted a further review of more games in depth instead of just remaking one. Again, instead we focused on the one case that was brought up that was very clearly not within the rules, and warn & educate.

Now, I've seen multiple people continue to say "it was within the rules" but frankly, it clearly isn't. The admin have already reviewed and basically are saying that its NOT within the rules to do what has been done. So to continue to say "its within the rules" and ignore this fact as Paul recently put it, I honestly do not know why this seems to escape you. The rules are not based on TOPs perspective, just as they aren't mine or joskos. Its whats been established as acceptable (or not) by the site (and those in charge of the site).

I completely know where you are coming from regarding this:

Reading case examples from distant past probably isn't what most players are here for. I'm here to have fun mainly and to play the game.

I felt the same way, and when my clan formed (FALL) I received the same feedback from my players. However, making sure we played cleanly and within the rules, and not getting punished was of utmost importance to me as one of the leaders. So I spent my time researching those cases, reading the rules, communicating and asking questions both of the CD's at the time, and the Admins so that everything we did would fall under "acceptable" criteria if I could help it. I proactively did that, and then went back and communicated to my clan these rules so that they did not have to spend their time doing the exact same thing. Why? Because I knew that I wanted to participate in clans, I wanted good, clean fun competition and I wanted to do so informed.

Now, not everyone is like me. I get that. You can go about things two ways. There are sayings "ask for permission first, or do it and ask for forgiveness later". I'm the type of person that wants to ask first. Maybe your group didn't want to do the research, or somehow, someway had "no idea" about the site sitting rules and past cases even with so much years of experience here. If you make your own interpretation of those rules instead of clarifying, researching, asking questions, then you may find yourself behind the 8 ball so to speak and find yourself getting educated on existing practices that others some how even with all the "vague" rules you are quoting, somehow, someway, have basically been able to play on the site for years without to many issues outside of a few individual cases.

Now whether people knew what they were doing was wrong and felt because they thought the clan rules were vague they could get away with it or somehow argue it, or whether it was unintentional doesn't really matter here. But the site rules still apply, and the admins still treat clan cases just the same. If you choose not to look into those rules, those cases, and instead want to get called out and punished after instead of learning before. Thats your choice I guess. Site admins dont look at how it impacts wars, or leagues because they look at "is this person running their account in accordance to site rules". The answer in this case, was simply no and 1/2 of the players already had an issue in the past with the exact same thing.