Outlaw Password Sharing and Account Sitting

[RedRover23B]

Ok im going to say this first.. i read the first 4 pages and this last page so if im repeating something previously said than i apologize.


Metsfanmax is making very good and very logical points. Almost, at times, convinced me. But a few things i have to point out.

About Tournaments, tournaments can last days or months there is almost no way for a TO to know how long a tournament can or will last let alone a player joining. And to miss turns in a tournament game or to even just withdraw from the tournament will ruin the whole purpose for said tournament. A tournament is designed to find out who is the best, if a player misses a turn [in my opinion] that greatly hinders the result of the game. If Player X plays for player A then that could still alter the outcome but probably to a lesser agree since [not actually did the math on this but guessing..] probably about 70% of CC players are lieutenants or lower- so in some cases a colonel could be playing for a private but ill say this happens rarely. And to back out of a tournament is a TO's nightmare. You have to fill the spot with someone who might not deserve to be that far in the tournament or you have put up a bye which could be unfair to the other players in the tournament. So, it creates an unbalance if a player drops from a tournament.

About the argument 'life happens'. Yes life happens- unseen, foreseen and possibly seen. Some events are completely out of control. Unexpected business trips [not everyone has control when, how long or for what purpose], Extreme illness, Death in families [even if you are still at home you may not want to play and you cant hold that against them] etc. even though, these things may happen rarely they do happen- are these people supposed to miss turns in clan wars, team games or even 1v1- making their and their opponents experience not as great especially playing against a free player? Lets remember the main purpose of this site: To play and have fun. That is why this site exist, for people who enjoy to play this game to come to an online community to play a game and Lack profits off of it. Why not have account sitters to let everyone enjoy the game.

About the vacation system, Ive read your posts, but i have to ask how will this work? Player has to go on vacation July 2nd-13th, so everyone else has to wait while he is away? If that is the case the the other players in the game might need to miss a few turns because they expected the game to be over by the 5th.

About an-automated system to sit accounts for the player. We could do this perhaps this is the 'most fair' but soon you will have more complaints about why did the computer make this move for me this is completely unreasonable or you have the other side complaining about the computer being too good and that the computer playing for a cook is playing like a captain. So where should you put the difficulty? Also, in stalemate games, who says the computer wont do that first attack and that essentially be losing the game. logical, systemically an attack could work but the computer cant take into account a human's intuition of how the other players will respond. In conclusion, a computer playing turns just wouldnt be good. Im sure we have all played against AI's who are either too good or just terrible, either are too logical or have terrible logic. Where is the line? Also, low ranks may abuse the system to let the computer play in tough situations where they dont know what to do.


A few points about why having sitter is good:

a. This site is for fun [despite the atmosphere of this forum], let the boys play.
b. Human intuition
c. The unexpected does happen- not everyone can be in control of their job, family or even finances to afford internet. I could be bummer internet from my neighbor then the neighbor moves away. So i can get a router and service to my house but it could take time account sitter is needed or my internet could be down for various reasons that are out of my control.

I try to highlight my main points for ease of reading. Hope to get some good responses even if it is in disagreement!

[Woodruff]

By the way, tournament games are where this is qualitatively most important. If someone gets that shiny medal for winning a tournament, shouldn't they be able to say that it was only due to their strategic efforts, and not any help they might have gotten from a friend?

But it's ok to earn that shiny medal simply because your opponent went on a vacation and deadbeated the games? Don't worry though! The winner still won on their own strategic efforts.

What? Is it REALLY that difficult to plan things out? I HAVE NOT EVER had a sitter on this site. I have played in 3175 games. I have played in BOATLOADS of tournaments. I have a 99% "turns taken ratio" and that includes twice when I basically dropped every single game I was playing at the time completely. So how did I do that? When I knew something was coming up, like a vacation, I trimmed down my games-started and got it as close to zero as I could before I left and made sure I didn't start any new tournaments, and then I checked in every few days while on vacation just to finish out the one or two games still running and those tournaments I was still in. It's not rocket science, and it's not difficult at all to do. You're a big fan of self-responsibility, Night Strike...so put the responsibility on the player to manage their own games, which is precisely where it belongs.

[RedRover23B]

In addition here are the CC guidelines to account sitting [the thread is locked so i couldnt simply quote but for for verification you can do a forum search and the original thread should come up]

Postby AndyDufresne on Thu Nov 11, 2010 5:26 pm

Account-Sitting:

* Players are allowed to account-sit for others as long as they are not opponents within the game. When sitting for a player, you need to post who you are and how long you will be sitting for the player so that other players in the game are aware of who they are actually playing.
* 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.

So you are allowed to share your password with your clan and they can jump in when they are in danger of missing the turn you can even go as far to post in certain threads as them.

[RedRover23B]

By the way, tournament games are where this is qualitatively most important. If someone gets that shiny medal for winning a tournament, shouldn't they be able to say that it was only due to their strategic efforts, and not any help they might have gotten from a friend?

But it's ok to earn that shiny medal simply because your opponent went on a vacation and deadbeated the games? Don't worry though! The winner still won on their own strategic efforts.

What? Is it REALLY that difficult to plan things out? I do not have HAVE NOT EVER had a sitter on this site. I have played in 3175 games. I have played in BOATLOADS of tournaments. I have a 99% "turns taken ratio" and that includes twice when I basically dropped every single game I was playing at the time completely. So how did I do that? When I knew something was coming up, like a vacation, I trimmed down my games-started and got it as close to zero as I could before I left and made sure I didn't start any new tournaments, and then I checked in every few days while on vacation just to finish out the one or two games still running and those tournaments I was still in. It's not rocket science, and it's not difficult at all to do. You're a big fan of self-responsibility, Night Strike...so put the responsibility on the player to manage their own games, which is precisely where it belongs.

Not everyone can check in while on vacation- not all tournaments are completed by the time you expect. Just because you are able to do something doesnt mean that everyone has the same ability. Some people have more unpredictable lives, living situations etc. They have the responsibility to find someone suitable to play the turn for them.

[Woodruff]

By the way, tournament games are where this is qualitatively most important. If someone gets that shiny medal for winning a tournament, shouldn't they be able to say that it was only due to their strategic efforts, and not any help they might have gotten from a friend?

But it's ok to earn that shiny medal simply because your opponent went on a vacation and deadbeated the games? Don't worry though! The winner still won on their own strategic efforts.

What? Is it REALLY that difficult to plan things out? I do not have HAVE NOT EVER had a sitter on this site. I have played in 3175 games. I have played in BOATLOADS of tournaments. I have a 99% "turns taken ratio" and that includes twice when I basically dropped every single game I was playing at the time completely. So how did I do that? When I knew something was coming up, like a vacation, I trimmed down my games-started and got it as close to zero as I could before I left and made sure I didn't start any new tournaments, and then I checked in every few days while on vacation just to finish out the one or two games still running and those tournaments I was still in. It's not rocket science, and it's not difficult at all to do. You're a big fan of self-responsibility, Night Strike...so put the responsibility on the player to manage their own games, which is precisely where it belongs.

Not everyone can check in while on vacation- not all tournaments are completed by the time you expect. Just because you are able to do something doesnt mean that everyone has the same ability. Some people have more unpredictable lives, living situations etc. They have the responsibility to find someone suitable to play the turn for them.

So then why is it that big of a deal if turns are missed? If, as the defenders of account sharing are trying to claim, this is just a "for fun site", then missing a turn or deadbeating out of a few games shouldn't be that big of a deal. So why is it? Is it because those claimants really DON'T believe their own words in that regard?

[RedRover23B]

Wining is more fun than losing. Thats why people get account sitters, to prevent them from losing. Also, if you read my post i mentioned earlier that missing turns ruins the opponents experience as well especially free players. They have 4 games and if one game is dragging out caused of missed turns that isnt very enjoyable for them. Please read posts before responding.

[Woodruff]

Wining is more fun than losing. Thats why people get account sitters, to prevent them from losing. Also, if you read my post i mentioned earlier that missing turns ruins the opponents experience as well especially free players. They have 4 games and if one game is dragging out caused of missed turns that isnt very enjoyable for them. Please read posts before responding.

I've read this entire thread. Please try to climb off that high horse before you fall off...you only come off looking like a jackass.

[jefjef]

Wining is more fun than losing. Thats why people get account sitters, to prevent them from losing. Also, if you read my post i mentioned earlier that missing turns ruins the opponents experience as well especially free players. They have 4 games and if one game is dragging out caused of missed turns that isnt very enjoyable for them. Please read posts before responding.

I've read this entire thread. Please try to climb off that high horse before you fall off...you only come off looking like a jackass.

pot... kettle... black...

Missed turns ruin the enjoyment of many games and many times the outcomes of them. As for you all to suggest that missed turns are enjoyable for freemiums, that have only 4 games, is absolutely ludicrous. It's pretty boring playing only 4 games when no one is missing turns. It absolutely sucks when you wait and wait and wait and then play and then wait and wait and wait some more. It sure wouldn't encourage anyone to stay here at CC or encourage investment here..

[Metsfanmax]

There's a lot in RedRover's post and it would take a while to respond to all of them, but I'll try to hit the main points -

If Player X plays for player A then that could still alter the outcome but probably to a lesser agree since [not actually did the math on this but guessing..] probably about 70% of CC players are lieutenants or lower- so in some cases a colonel could be playing for a private but ill say this happens rarely.

I would agree in some cases that a sitter taking a turn does not substantively affect the outcome of the game with respect to if the player had taken the turn themselves, but not in all cases. Rank isn't everything either, it's possible that someone could have an average rank and still be really good because they play a lot of 1v1s or something. Anyway, the point is that if I get a tournament medal I want to believe it was all due to MY playing skills and strategy. It would be tainted for me if I only won because I had a friend to play for me when something came up. I like winning too, but I like winning cleanly. If it were up to me, account sitting would be considered unsportsmanlike for that reason -- if you do win, it was probably because someone had to keep you alive. I know we don't all share the same point of view on that, but that's OK -- what is sportsmanlike is typically considered by community consensus. If the majority don't mind taking points from other people when they didn't do ALL of the work to earn those points, then that's that. I just wanted to make the case for my side of it.

About the argument 'life happens'. Yes life happens- unseen, foreseen and possibly seen. Some events are completely out of control. Unexpected business trips [not everyone has control when, how long or for what purpose], Extreme illness, Death in families [even if you are still at home you may not want to play and you cant hold that against them] etc. even though, these things may happen rarely they do happen- are these people supposed to miss turns in clan wars, team games or even 1v1- making their and their opponents experience not as great especially playing against a free player? Lets remember the main purpose of this site: To play and have fun. That is why this site exist, for people who enjoy to play this game to come to an online community to play a game and Lack profits off of it. Why not have account sitters to let everyone enjoy the game.

I find this argument to be pretty much a wash. Proponents of the account sitting ban would just argue that if indeed life does happen, then we shouldn't be worried about our internet score on Conquer Club. You can't both argue that real life is important and takes priority over CC sometimes, and that your score is so important to you that you need it to be protected while you're gone.

About the vacation system, Ive read your posts, but i have to ask how will this work? Player has to go on vacation July 2nd-13th, so everyone else has to wait while he is away? If that is the case the the other players in the game might need to miss a few turns because they expected the game to be over by the 5th.

That was the way my suggested system worked, yes. I can't really think of a more fair way to do it, though I am certainly open to counter-suggestions when I post the thread! The idea here is that sure, your game might be postponed for a while, but it's not like you can't enjoy it when it becomes active again. To make it up to freemiums, I suggested upping the active freemium game limit so that if a couple of their games do go on vacation, they can still have others.

So you are allowed to share your password with your clan and they can jump in when they are in danger of missing the turn you can even go as far to post in certain threads as them.

Yes, that is one abuse of the current system. To be honest it has not been clarified at all by the C&A team where the line is crossed in terms of sharing your password continuously with others, but that's not the main point. I do think, though, that at least some of the suggestions for a non-password-sharing account sitting function solve this problem.

[jghost7]

About the argument 'life happens'. Yes life happens- unseen, foreseen and possibly seen. Some events are completely out of control. Unexpected business trips [not everyone has control when, how long or for what purpose], Extreme illness, Death in families [even if you are still at home you may not want to play and you cant hold that against them] etc. even though, these things may happen rarely they do happen- are these people supposed to miss turns in clan wars, team games or even 1v1- making their and their opponents experience not as great especially playing against a free player? Lets remember the main purpose of this site: To play and have fun. That is why this site exist, for people who enjoy to play this game to come to an online community to play a game and Lack profits off of it. Why not have account sitters to let everyone enjoy the game.

I find this argument to be pretty much a wash. Proponents of the account sitting ban would just argue that if indeed life does happen, then we shouldn't be worried about our internet score on Conquer Club. You can't both argue that real life is important and takes priority over CC sometimes, and that your score is so important to you that you need it to be protected while you're gone.

Why not? Why can one not argue that real life is important, and that their games, while not taking precedence, has value to them? Why is that so hard to understand? We obviously value it enough to invest our money into it. So, if one needs someone to watch his account for a couple of days whilst he takes care of business, where is the fault in this? I think you devalue this argument unfairly. It is not a wash. It is at least as valid as your opinion if not more.

.

So you are allowed to share your password with your clan and they can jump in when they are in danger of missing the turn you can even go as far to post in certain threads as them.

Yes, that is one abuse of the current system. To be honest it has not been clarified at all by the C&A team where the line is crossed in terms of sharing your password continuously with others, but that's not the main point. I do think, though, that at least some of the suggestions for a non-password-sharing account sitting function solve this problem.

Actually, you are permitted to share you password with anyone you choose should the need arise. It allows for all to have the option to find a sitter should you have the need to. And I don't believe that one is permitted to post on the forums via anothers account.

[RedRover23B]

Hehe im glad to see some of my points were skipped over.. perhaps they were valid points.

But Jghost provided a counter argument pretty effectively- so i wont beat a dead horse, but i do want to add one thing:

Metsfanmax wrote:

RedRover23b wrote:
About the argument 'life happens'. Yes life happens- unseen, foreseen and possibly seen. Some events are completely out of control. Unexpected business trips [not everyone has control when, how long or for what purpose], Extreme illness, Death in families [even if you are still at home you may not want to play and you cant hold that against them] etc. even though, these things may happen rarely they do happen- are these people supposed to miss turns in clan wars, team games or even 1v1- making their and their opponents experience not as great especially playing against a free player? Lets remember the main purpose of this site: To play and have fun. That is why this site exist, for people who enjoy to play this game to come to an online community to play a game and Lack profits off of it. Why not have account sitters to let everyone enjoy the game.

I find this argument to be pretty much a wash. Proponents of the account sitting ban would just argue that if indeed life does happen, then we shouldn't be worried about our internet score on Conquer Club. You can't both argue that real life is important and takes priority over CC sometimes, and that your score is so important to you that you need it to be protected while you're gone.

Jghost wrote:

Why not? Why can one not argue that real life is important, and that their games, while not taking precedence, has value to them? Why is that so hard to understand? We obviously value it enough to invest our money into it. So, if one needs someone to watch his account for a couple of days whilst he takes care of business, where is the fault in this? I think you devalue this argument unfairly. It is not a wash. It is at least as valid as your opinion if not more.

Lets take this example, If someone is breaking into my house i care about my safety and my families, but i also care enough about my property that im going to call the police. Or if you were in a baseball league and you had to miss a game due to illness, wont you still care if you won or lose especially if you were in a tournament? Just because you have to miss something for various reasons doesn't mean you dont care.

In the end, there will always be the two sides to this argument. So as a CC community, we have to decide which is the lesser evil. Having account sitters and have a few abuses or not have them and start something new.

One thing though is this, if we do ban account sitting then we will have to perfect a vacation system and we would have to perfect an automated system. Because despite all the examples of people having stable lives and who are able to play 3200 plus games with a 98% attendance there are those who just cant do that. Automated or non automated system people will have the same complaint about the computer sitting the account and perhaps more about the computer being too good or not good enough. With human account sitters, people are trusting their games to someone they know or have confidence in. I feel that if we go AI for account sitting then it would be the 2nd most complained about topic on CC next to the dice being unfair. Soon, CC will be flooded with the computer messed my game up. Dont you think this is true?

[jpcloet]

If you don't allow sitting, you will lose a lot of your medium active customers. The site by not doing anything is already jeopardizing almost 1/3 of its core revenues.

AI will be too hard to do, and a bad choice.

A Vacation and Emergency sitter system has already been proposed to admin (recently updated with input from Night Strike). The clan and tournament communities would then be able to design the appropriate levels of sitting rules/policies/guidelines.

[RedRover23B]

If you don't allow sitting, you will lose a lot of your medium active customers. The site by not doing anything is already jeopardizing almost 1/3 of its core revenues.

I understand how premium memberships may decrease if no account system is in place- but how is the site jeopardizing 1/3 of its core revenues? This may be off topic.

[Metsfanmax]

Lets take this example, If someone is breaking into my house i care about my safety and my families, but i also care enough about my property that im going to call the police. Or if you were in a baseball league and you had to miss a game due to illness, wont you still care if you won or lose especially if you were in a tournament? Just because you have to miss something for various reasons doesn't mean you dont care.

Of course I would care; obviously I take the site seriously enough to check my games a few times a day. The point is I don't play the game solely to win. Just like everyone else, I love the feeling when you cash that last set and eliminate your opponent. The apparent distinction between my side of the argument and the other side is that I am not willing to compromise the integrity of my account just to boost my score. I would absolutely rather lose a game than win a game because someone else had to play for me. That's why I don't think this argument goes anywhere. The people in favor of account sitting take it as a personal affront, that we want them to suffer because real life happens. We do not see it that way. I would suffer more if my score were increased because I got some help. I do not want help. I think the division comes from where enjoyment of the game comes from. I can still enjoy a game even if I end up losing because of something like this. I can do this because the outcome of any one game isn't really important to me -- there are always more games, more tournaments. I play to win, but I don't stop playing if I don't win. I can't believe that people are so invested in their CC score that they would stop playing altogether if they missed a few turns here and there because of RL (I mean really, you love the site so much that you would quit in retaliation?!), but I will respect the point of view even if I cannot understand it.

One thing though is this, if we do ban account sitting then we will have to perfect a vacation system and we would have to perfect an automated system. Because despite all the examples of people having stable lives and who are able to play 3200 plus games with a 98% attendance there are those who just cant do that.

The idea of the vacation system is that if you have a few RL emergencies here and there, you don't have to lose the game because of it. It is not to ensure that players never miss turns. This game will always be dominated by those who have a faster internet connection and more time to spend online. Even if we make it possible for no one to ever miss a turn, those more serious players will have more time to strategize with friends, play more games, be better at freestyle and speed games, etc. If you miss a few turns here and there, totally fine. If you make it a habit of constantly missing turns and leaving, the vacation system should not and will not protect you. CC is a site for people who are able to regularly check their games at least once per day. If you cannot commit to that, vacations notwithstanding, you shouldn't be playing.

Also I have no idea where this automated account sitting idea came from, but I never addressed it nor supported it. I only support a vacation system, where a game is put on hold until you come back.

[RedRover23B]

By the way, password sharing will be eliminated at some point this year in favor of an automated system for account sitting. There are a number of threads about this in this forum.

Sorry, i assumed you were in favor- but after reading your first post again youre right there is no opinion there just stating that an automated system could be coming.


I see your point- I really do. Games should be totally on the player's, who joined the game, merit/skill/strategy to play a game, because there is more satisfaction out of that then to have some one else come in a play a few turns for you. If someone else plays for you then, can a player really call it there win? No not really, which in turn may lessen a player's experience. [Hopefully i summarized it correctly].

Continuing that thought though, lets say you have played 60 rounds of a hive game and you are so close to victory but something comes up and you have to miss a turn. And in a game with escalating cards one missed turn [one extra card for the opponent or not gaining a card yourself] could cause you to lose the game. After such a long game, are you saying you rather lose for the mere sake of claiming you played the whole game on your own? Wouldn't that be frustrating to think- 'i could have won'. And before anyone dismisses this argument based on rarity of such games [if anyone plans to make such a claim] i want to add this does happen a lot. Player's invest a lot into a game whether it lasts 15 rounds or 100. Time, effort, and thought goes into each game and to lose it just cause of one or two turns are missed is a shame [in my opinion]. Perhaps, youre right this is where the argument differs: you have those who want to finish a game no matter what needs to be done in the middle and you have others who want to finish the game only on their merit. But isnt that for each player to decide? You dont have to get an account sitter- you can finish a game on your own merit, but why ban account sitting for those who want have a fill-in for a few turns because to them the result matters or they are unwilling to say that the time and effort spent on the game was for nothing.

[Metsfanmax]

Sorry, i assumed you were in favor- but after reading your first post again youre right there is no opinion there just stating that an automated system could be coming.

Actually, you misunderstood what "automated" meant. A computer taking someone's turn was not an option on the table. What I meant was, the system planned to be implemented will allow you to take turns for someone else from the comfort of your own account -- you never have to log into their account to take their turns, so password sharing would presumably be banned. This would eliminate easily many of the potential abuses (for example, posting on the forum, or not announcing that you're sitting).

Continuing that thought though, lets say you have played 60 rounds of a hive game and you are so close to victory but something comes up and you have to miss a turn. And in a game with escalating cards one missed turn [one extra card for the opponent or not gaining a card yourself] could cause you to lose the game. After such a long game, are you saying you rather lose for the mere sake of claiming you played the whole game on your own? Wouldn't that be frustrating to think- 'i could have won'. And before anyone dismisses this argument based on rarity of such games [if anyone plans to make such a claim] i want to add this does happen a lot. Player's invest a lot into a game whether it lasts 15 rounds or 100. Time, effort, and thought goes into each game and to lose it just cause of one or two turns are missed is a shame [in my opinion]. Perhaps, youre right this is where the argument differs: you have those who want to finish a game no matter what needs to be done in the middle and you have others who want to finish the game only on their merit. But isnt that for each player to decide? You dont have to get an account sitter- you can finish a game on your own merit, but why ban account sitting for those who want have a fill-in for a few turns because to them the result matters or they are unwilling to say that the time and effort spent on the game was for nothing.

If you're in the position where you've virtually won the game, and the only reason you lose is because you missed a turn, isn't that the same thing as a win for most purposes? The only thing you don't get are the points added to your score, and the slight bump to your winning percentage. But you will still know that you played correctly and dominated the board. Isn't that what really matters? You had fun while you played the game -- so what if the game isn't actually recorded as a win for you? That does not take away from your strategic achievement.

I do not need the external validation to know whether I am doing well in my games. I can understand why you might want that, but I urge you to consider that it's not necessary -- not at the cost of winning a game due to someone else's partial contribution.

[RedRover23B]

{I did misunderstand thanks for clearing that up}

Let me ask this then, does allowing people to sit accounts really that important then? If you have fun no matter what, if you know you are the victor for what ever reason, then why ban it and ruin someone's win percentage or attendance. People take pride in different things. I have a friend who is terrible at the game call of duty, but he has fun because he brags that he has a 75% accuracy, while i take pride in my kill/death ratio, slightly off topic i know but my point is this: I dont care too much about my rank, but i like to keep my win percentage high, that's how i know im doing a good job. It is something i can look to and say '47% win percentage, not bad' and i can compare myself to others.

But i guess the main reason i say this will never get banned is:
A. There isnt enough concrete evidence that the turn that was taken was executed better than the what should have been. [the sitter being better than the original player]. Im sure it goes both ways and averages out.
B. This is a feature that speeds games along, so that the CC community can do what they came here to do: Play games.
C. What's the difference between logging in as someone and playing compared to logging as yourself and playing their account- essentially all your arguments will still be in effect: The player has partial contribution, The player could be better than the original player. Just because its automated just reduces the amount of people who are eligible to sit accounts.
D. People take pride in their own accomplishments, others in ranks and win percentages. And sometimes they need a little help.

[Metsfanmax]

Let me ask this then, does allowing people to sit accounts really that important then? If you have fun no matter what, if you know you are the victor for what ever reason, then why ban it and ruin someone's win percentage or attendance. People take pride in different things. I have a friend who is terrible at the game call of duty, but he has fun because he brags that he has a 75% accuracy, while i take pride in my kill/death ratio, slightly off topic i know but my point is this: I dont care too much about my rank, but i like to keep my win percentage high, that's how i know im doing a good job. It is something i can look to and say '47% win percentage, not bad' and i can compare myself to others.

This idea of "ruining" win percentage is flawed because it is out of context. If no one could have their turns taken for them, then everyone would lose a few games here and there because of missed turns. If this affected win percentages in a substantive way, it would affect everyone equally and so would probably average out in the long run (that is, you will miss games, but so will other people that you are playing against, allowing you to win a game due to their missed turns). Now I recognize that this is not entirely true -- those people who have constant internet access 24/7 (say they work from home or something) will probably miss less turns. However, the real problem here, the one that the OP originally alluded to, is that account sitting is fair but not equal. In reality, some players do not have account sitters, and those people are at a disadvantage (in terms of chances to win games) compared to average clan players and the like. So with or without account sitting, there will always be a disparity between the "haves" and the "have-nots." It is the nature of such competitive game-playing sites. Given the difficulty in eradicating that disparity, I would at least like to side with the system that doesn't favor people simply because they've made more internet friends.

A. There isnt enough concrete evidence that the turn that was taken was executed better than the what should have been. [the sitter being better than the original player]. Im sure it goes both ways and averages out.

Perhaps it does, but that isn't the main objection. The objection is that regardless of the quality of the turn taken, you did not take it, and so if you win, it does not entirely represent your strategic efforts. It may be a philosophical objection but it is one that I believe in.

C. What's the difference between logging in as someone and playing compared to logging as yourself and playing their account- essentially all your arguments will still be in effect: The player has partial contribution, The player could be better than the original player. Just because its automated just reduces the amount of people who are eligible to sit accounts.

There is no difference. I object to the proposed system. I was pointing out that it does solve some of the abuses, though.

D. People take pride in their own accomplishments, others in ranks and win percentages. And sometimes they need a little help.

Sure, but if you let someone take turns for you, then your win percentage is not entirely due to your own efforts anymore. I would not take pride in a win percentage that I had to rely on others to achieve, even if only just a few times.

[RedRover23B]

Yes, i think these last two posts summarizes all the arguments and defenses. Now, whoever needs to make the final call can make it.

Its been a good debate. Both sides have their opinions and things that they just dont want to give up on. It comes to a tough decision. Its been nice having a friendly debate, too bad more CC members cant be calm in arguments.

[jghost7]

However, the real problem here, the one that the OP originally alluded to, is that account sitting is fair but not equal. In reality, some players do not have account sitters, and those people are at a disadvantage (in terms of chances to win games) compared to average clan players and the like. So with or without account sitting, there will always be a disparity between the "haves" and the "have-nots." It is the nature of such competitive game-playing sites. Given the difficulty in eradicating that disparity, I would at least like to side with the system that doesn't favor people simply because they've made more internet friends.

lol

It is fair and equal. It only takes one person to sit for you. If one would look, then they could find the one they need to sit for them. There is no real disparity there. Have and have nots for your part is a bit dramatic. This was brought up before, and was addressed before. Somewhere around here...http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 5&start=66

enjoy,
J

[Metsfanmax]

It isn't so hard to find someone to take your turn if you do look around, I'll admit that. It is difficult to find someone who you can trust to play your game well and who you can trust to actually take your turns for you, instead of just forgetting about you or something, which could easily happen if you find some random person on the forum to do it. People in clans, for example, have friends they know well and can trust and count on to take turns for them. If I go on the forum for the first time or to Live Chat, there's no guarantee that the person I find will be reliable and actually take my turns decently, if I can even find such a person.

[jghost7]

Yeah, I would recommend having a playing history with the potential sitter. And not waiting to the last minute to get one if possible. It might be trial and error at first, but you can find one to suit you.


You mention people in clans...also have to consider that most people that are in clans have spent their fair share of time on the site already. So by the time they get in they already had a sitter or two.




J

[Uncle Death]

I've waited and was wondering when a decision might be made. I'm not familiar with how this works. Is this dead in the water or is it still being considered?

[BoganGod]

They might make noises about considering this draconian idea. I doubt they are that keen to lose revenue. I and over 20other players I know(most of us premium3+years) will not be renewing premium if there is no sitter function.

[tkr4lf]

They might make noises about considering this draconian idea. I doubt they are that keen to lose revenue. I and over 20other players I know(most of us premium3+years) will not be renewing premium if there is no sitter function.

You can add my name to that list.