Clan Sitting Rules Discussion

[Keefie]

As I have said on other occasions, the rules have to:

1.- Be clear
2.- Apply them to all, equally.

If they are not clear, they create problems and uncertainty, doubts, injustices, etc.
Everything that comes behind a not clear rule, has no solid foundation, including punishment.

The rule of emergency sitter is not clear.
The term "recently" used in this rule is not clear. ("The person in question must not have been online recently taking their own turns")

Hundreds of turns are covered, but these rules are not applied correctly to all. Neither do punishments. Then? What happend here? How can apply one rule that are not clear? How can punish for do something that are not clear regulated? What happens to the hundreds of turns that are being covered and not behaved in the same way with each one?

It is necessary to clarify the terms "recently". It is necessary to clarify emergency sitter rules. While this is not done, competition is being adulterated with unequal enforcement and unfair punishment.

These endless and endless threads not help, most members will not read. And the rule remain not clear.

Until recently it was difficult to know where those rules are. Now, 4 days ago a post has been placed in a preferred place, only 4 days ago, but the rule still has the gaps I have commented. While all this has happened before without clear rules.

On a particular level I strongly disagree with what is being done here with all this in recent times. And therefore I will not renew my account. I will also stop participating in the forums and I will not read them. Now somebody will come out and send me to hell or trash, as usual. Bye

Not sure why your'e saying it was difficult to know where the rules were. They've been in the same place in announcements for as log as I can remember.

As for your last comment, I for one really hope you change your mind.

[Vid_FISO]

What is really unclear?

Someone plays a load of moves but leaves a few with 9+ hours for the next morning/ their return from work in the evening, something happens, say they oversleep and can't long on to play the game(s) they intended, or for whatever reason they don't get home as expected, they get covered, no issues, unless its happening frequently.

Someone else plays moves in games but leaves one or more and goes to bed/ work knowing full well they aren't going get up at 3am or be allowed to toddle off to an internet cafe by their boss mid-morning, they get covered, someone notices, issues!

[IcePack]

The term "recently" used in this rule is not clear. ("The person in question must not have been online recently taking their own turns")

Hundreds of turns are covered, but these rules are not applied correctly to all. Neither do punishments. Then? What happend here? How can apply one rule that are not clear? How can punish for do something that are not clear regulated? What happens to the hundreds of turns that are being covered and not behaved in the same way with each one?

It is necessary to clarify the terms "recently". It is necessary to clarify emergency sitter rules. While this is not done, competition is being adulterated with unequal enforcement and unfair punishment.

Now somebody will come out and send me to hell or trash, as usual

The site on many occassions have left rules like this vague intentionally. Because in cases like farming, or ranching, etc (and sitting) when they defined "its ok to farm 5 people" guess what people did? They farmed 5. If they said 10, people went to 10. By specifically defining "exact amounts" it in itself creates abuse and makes people push the limits of whats "allowed". They've chosen to leave things vague to intentionally make people self police.
Then, when you get warned for crossing the line you should dial it back.

Another difficulty is when you start being so specific, there is always going to be SOMETHING that someone didn't consider. Some loop hole, some scenario that was never envisioned, and then we are creating 100 rules to cover ever last scenario possible.

Thats not what we are all here for. Its supposed to be a fun game where everyone follows the guidelines. Warnings are there to let people know when they cross the line. Then to be learned from, and move on.

As far as your comment about punishments, we research abuse when it gets reported. Most clans discuss it with one another (like josko attempted to) so that they let people know they have concerns. Usually, this sort of thing gets worked out well before it ever reaches any sort of warning / punishment. Usually, someone gets alerted of the rules or whats expected and they stop doing it. However, again we aren't here to sit and police every single turn ever taken. If someone reports it, we look into it. Thats pretty much the scope of it. We're here to create a fun environment, run contests, guide the clan world etc and make sure everything is kosher when the time calls for it.

I agree these endless threads dont help, but we didn't create it.

Nobody is going to send anything to trash "as usual" unless it violates some sort of warning or whatever. This space was fine to have a discussion, but CL8 thread wasn't meant for that type of thing to take place which is why it got moved (not deleted).

Thanks

[iAmCaffeine]

Lex said the sitting rules were posted in TOP's forum by Paul, so I'm not sure why macken says they're hard to find.

[Lex Usi]

Lex said the sitting rules were posted in TOP's forum by Paul, so I'm not sure why macken says they're hard to find.

Clan rules were posted in our forum when CL8 started. Not the site rules. As it turned out the clan rules were not in effect.

[IcePack]

Lex said the sitting rules were posted in TOP's forum by Paul, so I'm not sure why macken says they're hard to find.

Clan rules were posted in our forum when CL8 started. Not the site rules. As it turned out the clan rules were not in effect.

Mmm, both are in effect. Its not one or the other, but both. Just because we play clan games does not excempt us from the standard site rules as well.
Clan Dept just goes beyond the standard site rules to specify additional details.

[xroads]

It's amazing game how every member of top vigorously defends their actions, while every other clan says they are wrong.

[IcePack]

that would enable the site to hire an non-biased employee to oversee the clan department. As it is currently the volunteer workers can do whatever they like with no consequences.

You mean like KA, who's a paid non biased employee who your disagreeing with his ruling over and over again? Or is it only "non biased" if they agree with you?

We can't do anything with no consequences. That might be your impression but it's simply not true.

[rockfist]

I've tried to avoid this conversation, but I'll say this Fallen had an inadvertent rules violation in CL last year that they were called on. A game was remade. It didn't appear in the thread because it was handled between the clans. There was no "it was inadvertent so the game should not be remade" argument made as far as I know.

How do I know it was inadvertent? It was player overuse. No one would do that on purpose. We can all count and in CL it's not huge numbers of games we are talking about. Many of us know what happened when TOFU overused players in CC1 no need to revisit that. Rules are rules.

[IcePack]

Yep. Someone asked about a Fallen member sitting as well in the last few months. That player was treated no differently (warning + education) just like everyone else.

[macken]

The term "recently" used in this rule is not clear. ("The person in question must not have been online recently taking their own turns")

Hundreds of turns are covered, but these rules are not applied correctly to all. Neither do punishments. Then? What happend here? How can apply one rule that are not clear? How can punish for do something that are not clear regulated? What happens to the hundreds of turns that are being covered and not behaved in the same way with each one?

It is necessary to clarify the terms "recently". It is necessary to clarify emergency sitter rules. While this is not done, competition is being adulterated with unequal enforcement and unfair punishment.

Now somebody will come out and send me to hell or trash, as usual

The site on many occassions have left rules like this vague intentionally. Because in cases like farming, or ranching, etc (and sitting) when they defined "its ok to farm 5 people" guess what people did? They farmed 5. If they said 10, people went to 10. By specifically defining "exact amounts" it in itself creates abuse and makes people push the limits of whats "allowed". They've chosen to leave things vague to intentionally make people self police.
Then, when you get warned for crossing the line you should dial it back.

Another difficulty is when you start being so specific, there is always going to be SOMETHING that someone didn't consider. Some loop hole, some scenario that was never envisioned, and then we are creating 100 rules to cover ever last scenario possible.

Thats not what we are all here for. Its supposed to be a fun game where everyone follows the guidelines. Warnings are there to let people know when they cross the line. Then to be learned from, and move on.

As far as your comment about punishments, we research abuse when it gets reported. Most clans discuss it with one another (like josko attempted to) so that they let people know they have concerns. Usually, this sort of thing gets worked out well before it ever reaches any sort of warning / punishment. Usually, someone gets alerted of the rules or whats expected and they stop doing it. However, again we aren't here to sit and police every single turn ever taken. If someone reports it, we look into it. Thats pretty much the scope of it. We're here to create a fun environment, run contests, guide the clan world etc and make sure everything is kosher when the time calls for it.

I agree these endless threads dont help, but we didn't create it.

Nobody is going to send anything to trash "as usual" unless it violates some sort of warning or whatever. This space was fine to have a discussion, but CL8 thread wasn't meant for that type of thing to take place which is why it got moved (not deleted).

Thanks

I was not referring to you (nor anyone in particular). Nor did I mean that the comment could be moved. Was about nagging

[angola]

It's amazing game how every member of top vigorously defends their actions, while every other clan says they are wrong.

Seriously. Drama seems to follow Paul - and by extension TOP - everywhere he goes.

The sitting rules have been in place for a long time and very few other clans have been busted for abusing them, so I'm not sure why more clarity is suddenly needed now.

[macken]

If emergency sitter condition is under 2 hours, play in other game "recently" condition have to refer to play withing these 2 hours to be consider recently and against the rule of emergency.

Otherwise have not sense and are not clear. In all case, the amount of time ("recently") has been left undefined. The reason has been explained,... but it creates a problem of insecurity in the right thing to do, when there is an emergency case.

The reason for there have been no a lot of problems about it, among other things because many similar cases have occurred but have not been brought to a report. But the lack of definition and doubts about, exists.

[Donelladan]

If emergency sitter condition is under 2 hours, play in other game "recently" condition have to refer to play withing these 2 hours to be consider recently and against the rule of emergency.

Otherwise have not sense and are not clear. In all case, the amount of time ("recently") has been left undefined. The reason has been explained,... but it creates a problem of insecurity in the right thing to do, when there is an emergency case.

The reason for there have been no a lot of problems about it, among other things because many similar cases have occurred but have not been brought to a report. But the lack of definition and doubts about, exists.

Well this isn't the case anyway. I mean possibly someone could play within the last 2 hours, and still need sitting, and that could still be ok with the rule.
I don't have all the facts concerning TOP case, but as far as I understood it, you haven't been punished because of only one case ( Nibotha) but also because there was way more sitting in your clan than what is considered normal. ( =>I haven't seen the verdict, it hasn't been posted as far as I know, so I am not 100% sure, it's just what I understood from all the post I have read)

The thing is, rule cannot be clear, because there is so many different situation and cases that we can't have one clear defined rule.
The ermegency sitting isn't even for 2 hours, sometimes even with 5 h remaining it can be ok to sit someone.
The important thing is that sitting should remain rather exceptional. Unless, someone is missing for a long time ( either planned or unplanned) in which case the sitting will be for a longer period of course.
But otherwise emergency should be rare, and as long as it is the case, then everything is fine and no one care if you sit with 5h remaining on clock, or 1h remaining on clock, or if you sit someone that played a turn 1 hour ago.

[xroads]

What really got them busted is that within 2 hours from the end of his turn, he was playing turns in other games.

Then he went to work and mysteriously had no internet there.

And the report said excessive sitting by the clan. That means KA could go in, see who was sitting for who and how often. Honestly I think our clan maybe gets a turn taken by someone else twice a week? Sometimes less. I think in the first round of this past war, TOP had 8-10 turns taken by someone else. That is a ton of turns in 16 games.

That is excessive and extreme IMO.

How about a rule that says 99% of turns must be taken by player and not sitter?

[willedtowin1]

If You are going to make the sitting rule to technical because of
a small few who abuse it, You may make the site unbearable for
a vast majority to play. Just my humble opinion..............

[Doc_Brown]

If You are going to make the sitting rule to technical because of
a small few who abuse it, You may make the site unbearable for
a vast majority to play. Just my humble opinion..............

This.

I'd also like to point out that there is a pretty decent chance this never would have even become an issue if the TOP players hadn't started making a stink about Bruce playing in one of the games and, according to their concerns, having most of his turns taken by a sitter like Josko. If you start telling people the game will be unfair if they put in a player that will need a lot of sitting by a more experienced player, you're going to get a lot of scrutiny when one of your most experienced players sits for two other teammates in the exact same game a day or two later!

[macken]

I know and understand comments.
I see many turns taken for sitters in all game (of all clans) I see.
I think this issue has become a mountain of something as usual as a emergency sitter is in CC games.

Perhaps warnings and clarifications about the rules would have been appropriate and enriching for all in some moment... But redo winning games and ban players, I honestly do not consider it appropriate in this case, neither for fair competition.

[xroads]

It probably wouldnt of happened if it was anyone else besides FF.

The fact that he was banned before for sitting abuse is probably what really made that happen.

[macken]

3 years ago? That can't be a life condemnation. After a time with good behavior that need to be consider and cancel.
In addition, as I know, this time is not the same that happended years ago. Can't apply as if that would be a replay of the same, is another thing.

[Donelladan]

Well FreeFalling was banned because it wasn't the first time he made abusive sitting.
If it had been the first time, FreeFalling would likely only have a warning. But because of his past, well, when you commit several time the same offence, there is an escalation of the punishment here in CC.
Also, note, the ban is about site rule, nothing to do with clans, and it was decided by a C&A mod ( probably even admin ).

While the game replay, this is by decided by the organiser of the clan league.
You said this isn't fair for the competition, we ( xroads, me and most people commenting in this thread) we can't really tell, we do not know how much sitting was deemed abusive, this isn't an information that was given, and I guess only C&A mod and clan mod know.

One could say that breaking sitting rule gave you an unfair advantage.
If it was just one turn in one game, then yes it does not seem appropriate to make a replay.
This is something that should ( and apparently have already been a lot) discussed with the mod.

edit :macken post while I was posting.


Yes the previous sitting abuse case of FF wasn't exactly the same
But it was sitting abuse. It was the same offence.
Personally I agree with you, both case were very different and the 1 month ban does seems harsh.
But from CC point of view, sitting abuse is one of the worst offence.

[dkmaster]

One could say that breaking sitting rule gave you an unfair advantage.
If it was just one turn in one game, then yes it does not seem appropriate to make a replay.
This is something that should ( and apparently have already been a lot) discussed with the mod.

No matter how many times josko and xroads are fabricating lies about the amount of sitting abuse in this case against TOP. The fact is that only 1 turn was seen and convicted as a sitting abuse. And that was the freefaling/nibotha one.

[niMic]

You've truly drunk your own kool-aid if you believe that that specific turn was TOPs only problem regarding account sitting.

[Donelladan]

One could say that breaking sitting rule gave you an unfair advantage.
If it was just one turn in one game, then yes it does not seem appropriate to make a replay.
This is something that should ( and apparently have already been a lot) discussed with the mod.

No matter how many times josko and xroads are fabricating lies about the amount of sitting abuse in this case against TOP. The fact is that only 1 turn was seen and convicted as a sitting abuse. And that was the freefaling/nibotha one.

Don't worry admin didn't made their ruling based on xroads and josko arguments, they made their own check of who was sitting who and when. ( for the Clan mod - might be they did, can't tell).

But - true or not - I think the discussion on this better be close. We ( the public ) don't have all the facts. Case has been handled, better to move on and not keep arguing on it. Especially since arguing here on whether the punishment was deserved or not it won't change anything at all for you.

[macken]

I think this post was for discussion about the sitting rules.

Put comments about one case, that have another post and all we know, and caused this discussion, can be referred, but not forgot the main topic for which it was created.