Clan Sitting Rules Discussion

by **IcePack** on Fri Feb 10, 2017 12:01 pm

Macken
The OP says it hoped for a discussion and that the rules be clarified which I think was achieved. We also committed to reviewing what we can do on our end to clarify things by the next Platoon Edition (~April 1st)

by **PaulatPeace** on Mon Feb 13, 2017 1:10 am

swimmerdude99 wrote:I just find it humorous. A clan you deemed "not following honor, and offensive" ended up not keeping freefalling123 in their clan (can't remember if it was Empire AOC at that time or ACE). But Paul, while you are on your crusade to do right would take in a once already convicted cheater (or maybe rule-bender is a better word) into your clan. Then you defend him when he does something again. Isn't that so opposite to enlightenment and truth?

Vid_FISO wrote:Given that every time PaulatPeace posts he his giving more evidence of TOP deliberately attempting to manipulate the sitting rules, is there likely to be further repercussions for TOP as a result?

I was about to comment on this as well. Its so odd to me that he would defend someone so toughly when its cheating/bending-rules. Doesn't that just point out how flawed his crusade to being truthful is? IF you have to make excuses for most of what you do, isn't that a hint you might be doing something wrong?

Since IcePack removed my thread from the Clan Forum, although it stemmed in part from conversations here in this thread...I thought it prudent to post the link to it here:

https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=221852&view=unread#unread

Paul

by **FreeFalling123** on Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:55 pm

All right clan world... I see this as a productive, constructive piece, but for each their own...

show: intro

show: details

show: stipulations

show: tactical advantages

show: bad joke

show: closing

-- FF

by **macken** on Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:36 pm

Keefie wrote:
macken wrote: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.

As for my words about my participation and the renew of my account, I have to say that it was automatically renewed days ago. This has happened without my knowledge.
It has happened like this, and I will leave it, it does not matter much. I will not renew it next time. My interest here has come down. I do not like to participate in injustices. Not worth it.

by **FreeFalling123** on Sun Feb 26, 2017 11:17 am

This is the definition of injustice:
-- the quality or fact of being unjust; inequity --

Let's review our specific case for the USA 2.1 game, wherein no further details were provided in our case.
Case A
Team account sits for two turns on round 1:
account sitting abuse warning / game advantage
-- Game remade / player warned

Case B
Team account sits turn 2 and 3.
Game is counted
No mention of discretionary principles.

by **IcePack** on Sun Feb 26, 2017 11:32 am

FreeFalling123 wrote:This is the definition of injustice:
-- the quality or fact of being unjust; inequity --

Let's review our specific case for the USA 2.1 game, wherein no further details were provided in our case.
Case A
Team account sits for two turns on round 1:
account sitting abuse warning / game advantage
-- Game remade / player warned

Case B
Team account sits turn 2 and 3.
Game is counted
No mention of discretionary principles.

Case A the warning was not for that game, it was for the overall level of sitting (this has been explained multiple times already).
The game remake was for the nature of the turn sitting as there was a specific violation found there in that game.

Case B should make a C&A case if you're concerned, and it will get looked at.

by **FreeFalling123** on Sun Feb 26, 2017 3:09 pm

When I account sat for the turn I had been offline for 23 hours straight, so I do not see how it was cheating on my part... You guys are saying Nibotha had no intention of taking the turn, but I have never felt that way.

At 24 hours in Fishy's turn she was not around and at 1 hour in her turn it was taken for her without any effort from her to take her turn... I have no idea what the definition of intention to take the turn is clarified as, but this was clearly no intention to take her turn whatsoever...

When Nibotha was on at 3:30 in his turn, he was recklessly taking moves before work and asked me if I was online. I went to chat and was surprised because I had left notes the day before... so there was no reason for him to contact me. He apparently got caught up at work, maybe forgot about the turn, so at 45 minutes when I happened to notice there was not much I could do.. He sometimes has a bad habit to take his turns at like 10 minutes, but I could not risk leaving it because I was already falling asleep as it was nearing 1am in the morning... I waited a bit until 30 minute to take his turn.

There is no reason to punish us because of this instance.

If this has happened in another clan, then can people please come forward?

I have no interest in playing games if rulings like this are considered fair. There was no strategic advantage in my taking a move that was in the chatbox. Even the next move I sat for JB he could have possibly gotten to his turn in the nick of time, but I couldn't wait another hour to take his turn...

Can someone please tell me when it REALLY becomes unconstitutional to take a move for a teammate?

by **iAmCaffeine** on Sun Feb 26, 2017 5:27 pm

I mean, if all this is legit, then I don't see where the issue is. It'd be nice if someone with authority could clarify the exact details of what TOP were punished for. Also, nibotha is a good player, it's not like he wouldn't take the turn if possible, unless I'm mistaken.

by **-1-1-3-** on Fri Mar 31, 2017 2:09 pm

...I used to think I was a decent flooder.. I realize I'm still a noob : )

by **-1-1-3-** on Fri Mar 31, 2017 2:10 pm

-1-1-3- wrote:...I used to think I was a decent flooder.. I realize I'm still a noob : )

And I'm currently taking lessons of necroposting.

by **Extreme Ways** on Fri Mar 31, 2017 2:14 pm

-1-1-3- wrote:
-1-1-3- wrote:...I used to think I was a decent flooder.. I realize I'm still a noob : )

And I'm currently taking lessons of necroposting.

Practicing on the easy topics eh?