Account Sharing Discussion

[Metsfanmax]

I added two more situations and updated the OP a little bit.

[Leehar]

I think situation 3-7 are wrong and therefore bannable offences, tho I still think 3-5 still are a bit of a grey area depending on certain specific facts

[BoganGod]

In most clan wars there is a restriction of how many games each clansman can play per war. Some were of the opinion that this is a way to circumvent this rule. I think that this in particular is a major motivation for the recent claims and actions brought about. You would not have heard much about it otherwise. I think we, as clans, would have to come together to come up with a suitable solution or agreement for this and how it works with the current rules.

I think you hit the nail on the head. I don't think Mets in this thread is to get anything banned. Rather than everyone coming in here and saying I have a life, by the way we all do. No one is asking that you be chained to your computer. When Mets said community consensus I think he was asking the community where does account sitting end and account sharing begin.

I think one of the problems here in the forums is we have to many grammar police, or people who try to read something that isn't there. jefjef your guilty of that this time. He isn't trying to get anything banned in this thread.

I am not saying account sitting is going to be banned but it looks like quite a few of you are afraid that it will be. Lets make this a constructive discussion. Come up with a definition of account sitting and what is acceptable.

Evil, I normally rate your reading comprehension skills very highly. Me thinks that mets quite possibly lacks things to do in his life and wants to gain a strategic advantage on this site. If account sitting was banned, those with no life outside the net and CC would be massively advantaged.

I've been on site for a few years now. I'm on 99% turns taken because before I joined a clan I deadbeated out of a ton of games, had to work in a remote location for a while. Hurt my stats a fair bit, made a lot of other users wait, and could have been avoided if I knew about sitters. I work, and try to have a family and social life.

If sitting was banned, I would leave the site, and most of the players on my large friends list would do the same. Just because a few control freak f*ck knuckles have abused the system, doesn't mean it should be ruined for everybody.

[Metsfanmax]

Evil, I normally rate your reading comprehension skills very highly. Me thinks that mets quite possibly lacks things to do in his life and wants to gain a strategic advantage on this site. If account sitting was banned, those with no life outside the net and CC would be massively advantaged.

Have you seen my active games? I don't think I've had more than 5 games active in months now

[BoganGod]

Evil, I normally rate your reading comprehension skills very highly. Me thinks that mets quite possibly lacks things to do in his life and wants to gain a strategic advantage on this site. If account sitting was banned, those with no life outside the net and CC would be massively advantaged.

Have you seen my active games? I don't think I've had more than 5 games active in months now

Because you spend all your time in forums, plotting to spread your evil no sitters curse over the entire site, thus giving you the upper hand. All hail the future squirrel overlord!(presume is a squirrel avatar). Maybe your a plant from a rival site, sent here to try and cut the revenue stream on CC in half and drive all players to go to other sites? That would be a really, really, really cunning plan. Fiendish even.

[jefjef]

I am discussing here is that we do not know what account sharing abuse actually is.

I am at a loss why some people do not understand what is considered account sharing.

If you take someones turns, who is available and capable of taking their own turn but don't want too, it would be soley for strategic gain and an abuse.

If you create games for someone while sitting it is an abuse. Account sharing.

If you join non-tourney games while sitting it is an abuse. Account sharing.

If you manipulate someones account (blitz case) and manipulate the points for your own gain it is an abuse. Account sharing.

If there is an account that several people use and the owner is absent it is account sharing and abuse.

[maasman]

I think this all comes down to common sense. If someone is about to miss a turn/you were told they would not be around, then take the turns. Just follow the rules as they are and no one should have a problem. It's not hard to only join tournament games and take the turns that need to be taken. I have several people's passwords and many people have mine, or easy access to it. I have never had a problem in keeping an eye out for them if I remember, or if other people need to come in and take mine on occasion. Follow the rules as they are and there should be no problems. If you start doing things not outlined, then it should be labeled abuse and proper measures taken. Simple as that.

[IcePack]

To me Situation 1-5 is legit, 6-7 i disagree with player B taking turns.

IcePack

[jefjef]

To me Situation 1-5 is legit, 6-7 i disagree with player B taking turns.

IcePack

Yes - 6 and 7 is for strategic purposes and is already a rules violation.

[Metsfanmax]

I am discussing here is that we do not know what account sharing abuse actually is.

If you take someones turns, who is available and capable of taking their own turn but don't want too, it would be soley for strategic gain and an abuse.

It sounds to me like "I'm tired and don't feel like playing my turns" should fall squarely under what you just said, no? So certainly Situations 3 to 5 are abuse?

[IcePack]

I am discussing here is that we do not know what account sharing abuse actually is.

If you take someones turns, who is available and capable of taking their own turn but don't want too, it would be soley for strategic gain and an abuse.

It sounds to me like "I'm tired and don't feel like playing my turns" should fall squarely under what you just said, no? So certainly Situations 3 to 5 are abuse?

Not being able to play due to a schedule or sleep, now and then (in my opinion) wouldn't be abuse. It's "I need to get up in 4 hours, i gotta sleep". I would say, it COULD be abused, if you know you continously can't take the game load you sign up for and constantly miss turns and have it sat for, due to your sleep schedule etc.

If your missing turns constantly due to sleep, you should have a lower game count imo. That could be abused, but falling asleep due to schedule now and then is reasonable.

IcePack

[Metsfanmax]

Not being able to play due to a schedule or sleep, now and then (in my opinion) wouldn't be abuse. It's "I need to get up in 4 hours, i gotta sleep". I would say, it COULD be abused, if you know you continously can't take the game load you sign up for and constantly miss turns and have it sat for, due to your sleep schedule etc.

If your missing turns constantly due to sleep, you should have a lower game count imo. That could be abused, but falling asleep due to schedule now and then is reasonable.

IcePack

I can tell you know this is a recipe for disaster. If something is against the rules, it should be against the rules no matter how many times you do it. I cannot overstate how important this is. Whether you've broken a rule or not should not be based on the discretion of the C&A mods who look into it and have to decide whether you've stepped over the line or not.

We could make a distinction that we won't punish you harshly if it doesn't happen regularly, but even then, no one has stepped up and said when it stops becoming "reasonable" and when it becomes abuse. In addition to that, many people are willing to say "if it happens a lot, it's abuse" but no one seems to be willing to specify how much "a lot" is.

[IcePack]

I never said it should be against the rules, i said 1-5 are fine with me. 6-7 aren't. Period.

I think lots of rules and things that are allowed CAN be abused, but doesn't make them against the rules.

IcePack

[Metsfanmax]

On CC we define abuse as some action that violates the rules. If you don't believe that constantly missing turns because you're tired and having someone else play them for you should ever be considered against the rules, then don't call it abuse I suppose.

[Rodion]

Gut reaction in blue.
More elaborated opinion in green.

Situation 1: Player A checks his turn in the game with 12 hours left, but does not want to take his turn yet because his teammate has not answered his questions in game chat and because he plans to log in later that day to take his turn. After he logs off, his internet connection is disabled because of weather, and he contacts Player B by phone and tells him that he will not be able to take his own turn. Is it legitimate for Player B to take the turn for Player A?

Yes.

Define "unable to take a turn". Can't he play that complicated Hive turn in his cell phone? Can't he go to a lan house to play? If you consider all possibilities, we can conclude that players are always able to play their turns except when catastrophes occur (such as an entire city blackout). Should people be allowed to get a sitter because playing through their mobiles or going to LAN houses is uncomfortable/expensive?

Situation 2: Same situation as Situation 1, except Player A is unable to contact Player B and warn him. Player B later notices that Player A has 30 minutes left in his turn and concludes that Player A is probably going to miss his turn. Is it legitimate for Player B to take the turn for Player A?

Yes.

Situation 3: Player A logs in with 2 hours left on several games and is too tired to play all of them. He notifies Player B that he does not intend to play all of them because he is going to sleep, and asks Player B to play the remaining turns for him. Is it legitimate for Player B to take the turn for Player A?

Yes.

It's similar to situation 1. Basically, which RL problems entitle you to getting a sitter and which doesn't? Can you get a sitter because playing on your small screen mobile is frustrating? Can you get a sitter because you lack the money to go to a lan house and play your turn? Can you get a sitter because you had a rough day and you feel like getting some pills and falling on bed is the one thing that can prevent you from a mental breakdown? Answer to the last question is the answer to situation 3, by the way.

Situation 4: Same situation as Situation 3, except Player B is not marked as online and Player A does not expect him to be able to cover the turn. Nevertheless, he wall posts Player B just in case, to say that he is not going to play some of his turns because he is going to sleep. An hour later Player B logs on and sees the wall post. Is it legitimate for Player B to take the turn for Player A?

Yes.

If 3 is allowed, 4 is allowed.

If 3 is not allowed, then 4 isn't. The person to blame depends on the content of the wall message. If he merely says he is not goint to play, B is responsible for sitting when he should not. If he says he is not going to play and asks B to sit, then both are responsible.

Situation 5: Same situation as Situation 4, except Player B is online and Player A expects that Player B will be able to take his turn for him, though he does not explicitly ask to have the turn covered. Is it legitimate for Player B to take the turn for Player A?

Yes.

Same as cases 3 and 4, but if 3/4/5 is not allowed the responsibility part gets tricky. If player B was not messaged by player A, situation 5 is just like situation 2, thus player B can't be blamed for sitting. Player A can be blamed if his intent of "not playing because his friend will" is proved. Problem is: how do you prove intent?


Situation 6: In the game, Player A has come upon a turn on a map that he finds very difficult to play. He believes that Player B is a more skilled player than he is, and although Player A has taken all of his turns in the game up to this point, he does not think he will be able to do it well and asks Player B to take his turn for him. Is it legitimate for Player B to take the turn for Player A?

No, this is abuse.

He could, however, talk to player B and blindly follow all his directions like a puppet. Same end result, different means.

Situation 7: Same situation as Situation 6, except that Player A logs on with only 10 minutes left in his turn and thinks he will need more time than that to correctly play the turn, whereas Player B could finish on time, with his superior experience and skill. Is it legitimate for Player B to take the turn for Player A?

Depends on intent. If he got there with only 10 minutes because of RL problems, then I think it would be ok to have a sitter. If he purposefully stalled his computer access in order to create that scenario, then it would be abuse.

However, if both are online, he can simply talk to player B and blindly follow all his directions like a puppet. Same end result, different means.

In the mentioned KORT case, the accusation basically went with the "if you were available to play in any moment during that 24-hour span and you ended up not playing your turn, you abused the account sitting feature" argument.

KA's opinion (from the verdict and the PMs we exchanged) was basically "if you're available to play a turn anywhere in the 24-hour span and you don't, you inevitably assume the responsibility for whatever catastrophes/RL problems that later arise and keep you from taking those turns yourself".

Extremely harsh and not user-friendly in my opinion.

[jpcloet]

Unfortunately your are not going to be able to prove RL problems in most cases. What I want to be able to see is the frequency. Eg. Did your internet go out 14 times in one week? Did you log in, play 4 games and leave 2 key games forcing your teammate to be a good friend and cover. What I envision is the ability of the communities to define excessive sitting for major events like X% of your turns must be played by the individual, and the ability of TeamCC to track and get the data in a timely manner.

[Ryno99]

Unfortunately your are not going to be able to prove RL problems in most cases. What I want to be able to see is the frequency. Eg. Did your internet go out 14 times in one week? Did you log in, play 4 games and leave 2 key games forcing your teammate to be a good friend and cover. What I envision is the ability of the communities to define excessive sitting for major events like X% of your turns must be played by the individual, and the ability of TeamCC to track and get the data in a timely manner.

I guess my question to that would be why? Why spend the resources and time of mods to deal with this when there are much more serious issues to deal with. This really shouldn't be an issue. it seems to be getting blown way out of proportion here.

[GoranZ]

Situation 6: In the game, Player A has come upon a turn on a map that he finds very difficult to play. He believes that Player B is a more skilled player than he is, and although Player A has taken all of his turns in the game up to this point, he does not think he will be able to do it well and asks Player B to take his turn for him. Is it legitimate for Player B to take the turn for Player A?

I doubt that this has happened but I don't see it as account sharing

Situation 7: Same situation as Situation 6, except that Player A logs on with only 10 minutes left in his turn and thinks he will need more time than that to correctly play the turn, whereas Player B could finish on time, with his superior experience and skill. Is it legitimate for Player B to take the turn for Player A?

This is also not account sharing... Example: I play from mobile phone ~10-15% of my turns, I know people that play more then 50% of their turns. I value a lot the ability of the game to be played from mobile device. The only drawback is that the time needed for a turn is 2 to 5 times longer then on regular PC. On a bigger maps I need more then 10 minutes for a good turn, so if I notice that a teammate is on line I will message him in order for him to take the turn for me and I don't see this as violation of the rules.

Unfortunately your are not going to be able to prove RL problems in most cases. What I want to be able to see is the frequency.

You don't have to have RL problems in order to supervise an account and as I said previously if someone knows a player that plays 50+ games for his account and supervise 2-3 friends that also have 50+ games I want all their usernames

I have played a game that has supervision feature and this is the outcome of my experience over there with the first 7 situations over here(so far there are 7).
Supervision feature was able/unable to do this(translated into CC as best as I can, both games have almost nothing in common):
-You can play other players account uninterrupted for 24 hours within 7 days. The other game had feature called Vacation Mode that can not be implemented here(Vacation mode means you wont take turns for at least 2 days but you wont be attacked or kicked from the game, length of the use of Vacation mode is indefinite)... Mainly I used supervision feature and after I made what was needed to be made I was using Vacation Mode feature. In CC instead of 24 hours maybe the best translation would be limitation of the number of games(or turns) that you can supervise in 7 days(50 games or 300 turns for example)
-You can be supervised only by 1 player within 7 days
-You can only supervise 1 player at a time
-You can decline game invitations
-You can not send messages to other players from supervised account
-You can not use the forum from supervised account
-You can not create new games

Situation 1: I have done it
Situation 2: I have done it
Situation 3: I have done it
Situation 4: I have done it
Situation 5: I have done it
Situation 6: Not this one... but I was able to do it
Situation 7: I have done it

What is my opinion for creating supervision feature for CC. Don't implement it, there were a lot of problems with this feature on the other game I have played, and CC has something unique to almost all other games. You need to cheat all the time in order to be able to profit from the cheating(and with this cheaters wont last long)

I hope I helped enough with my comparation with other game supervision feature. If there is a need for me to give more info about the problems concerning the supervision feature on the other game that I mention I will be glad to give the info.

I guess my question to that would be why? Why spend the resources and time of mods to deal with this when there are much more serious issues to deal with. This really shouldn't be an issue. it seems to be getting blown way out of proportion here.

I totally agree. I only want to know if someone else has taken the turn(notice for every turn so I wont have to look threw the logs of the games), that should be enough, nothing more.

[Nola_Lifer]

Game 9067909 What about a game like this? What is the point of having two of the players playing when they are being sat for a majority of the time. I am not picking on these two teams. Just trying to show that yes people have lives but why play a games when you can't make it or knowingly know you are going to be gone for a few days. I am not saying that this is abuse but over a period of time, lets say a few month, you repeatedly have someone sit for you then something must be done.

[Master Fenrir]

Situation 1: Player A checks his turn in the game with 12 hours left, but does not want to take his turn yet because his teammate has not answered his questions in game chat and because he plans to log in later that day to take his turn. After he logs off, his internet connection is disabled because of weather, and he contacts Player B by phone and tells him that he will not be able to take his own turn. Is it legitimate for Player B to take the turn for Player A?

Yes.

Situation 2: Same situation as Situation 1, except Player A is unable to contact Player B and warn him. Player B later notices that Player A has 30 minutes left in his turn and concludes that Player A is probably going to miss his turn. Is it legitimate for Player B to take the turn for Player A?

If he does his best to wait down the turn in hopes of Player A showing up and Player A does not show up, Yes.

Situation 3: Player A logs in with 2 hours left on several games and is too tired to play all of them. He notifies Player B that he does not intend to play all of them because he is going to sleep, and asks Player B to play the remaining turns for him. Is it legitimate for Player B to take the turn for Player A?

No, but Player A is the one abusing sitting, and forcing Player B into a bad situation.

Situation 4: Same situation as Situation 3, except Player B is not marked as online and Player A does not expect him to be able to cover the turn. Nevertheless, he wall posts Player B just in case, to say that he is not going to play some of his turns because he is going to sleep. An hour later Player B logs on and sees the wall post. Is it legitimate for Player B to take the turn for Player A?

No, but Player A is the one abusing sitting, and forcing Player B into a bad situation.

Situation 5: Same situation as Situation 4, except Player B is online and Player A expects that Player B will be able to take his turn for him, though he does not explicitly ask to have the turn covered. Is it legitimate for Player B to take the turn for Player A?

No, but Player A is the one abusing sitting, and forcing Player B into a bad situation.

Situation 6: In the game, Player A has come upon a turn on a map that he finds very difficult to play. He believes that Player B is a more skilled player than he is, and although Player A has taken all of his turns in the game up to this point, he does not think he will be able to do it well and asks Player B to take his turn for him. Is it legitimate for Player B to take the turn for Player A?

No. In this situation, Player B isn't hung out to dry as the previous scenarios. If Player B wants to be helpful, he could give advice, but he should not take the turn. Is Player B in the game and on the same team as Player A? If so, advice is fine. If not, it kinda sucks to even give advice. If Player A cannot be trusted by others or himself to play a clutch move even with the guidance of teammates, he should not be in the game.

Situation 7: Same situation as Situation 6, except that Player A logs on with only 10 minutes left in his turn and thinks he will need more time than that to correctly play the turn, whereas Player B could finish on time, with his superior experience and skill. Is it legitimate for Player B to take the turn for Player A?

No, but Player A is the one abusing sitting, and forcing Player B into a bad situation.

For everywhere where I responded with "No, but Player A is the one abusing sitting, and forcing Player B into a bad situation," Player A is creating a circumstance where he can screw over Player B (assuming they are on the same team) if the turn does not get taken. In this way, if Player B moves for him, it is in a sense out of self-defense. If I were a Hunter dealing with a C&A case involving these scenarios, Player A would receive the brunt of my punishment and Player B would be dealt with leniently. I say that it is not legitimate because of the language "a tactical advantage" built into the account sitting rule.

Situation 3, 4, 5: It is physically possible for Player A to take his turns but Player A is choosing not to. Under normal circumstances, he would miss that turn and his team would suffer. However, because he has friends on CC, the turn will not be missed, and the expected outcome (missing the turn) will be avoided. His team gains the tactical advantage of not missing the turn because Player B took the turn for Player A.

Situation 6 & 7: "He believes that Player B is a more skilled player than he is..." (Situation 6) "...whereas Player B could finish on time, with his superior experience and skill." (Situation 7) Clearly, Player B is the better tactician than Player A. Player A is specifically asking Player B to take the turn for him because it will provide his team with a tactical advantage.

The context of the game also matters. If it is a single game with no meaning, I couldn't care less. I'm confident in my ability to play a game regardless of who my opponents are and who they have sitting for them. If it's a tournament game, Player A could receive a medal that he would not have received without the help of Player B. If it's a clan game, you have several issues. Player game limits are specifically designed so that a handful of great players cannot dominate their side of the war. The limits are designed to minimize the influence of the great players and force the less skilled players to play in order to test the true depth of the clan. Assuming Player B is one such player, Player A is putting him in the situation where he has to influence games that he is not in, possibly because he CAN'T be in them because of the game limit. So Player A is creating a situation where his clan sneaks around the player game limit. Because of this, Player A & B's clans will win more games than if Player A had missed turns or had taken the turn himself as it was physically possible to do, and those games could possibly effect who won/lost the war.

tl; dr: You can never be too tired or too stressed to take your turn. You can be too tired or too stressed to take your turn and do it well. Tough shit. It's your turn. If it's a clan game, it's your turn in your game to which you were specifically assigned or in which you specifically asked to participate. Take your damn turn.

Game 9067909 What about a game like this? What is the point of having two of the players playing when they are being sat for a majority of the time. I am not picking on these two teams. Just trying to show that yes people have lives but why play a games when you can't make it or knowingly know you are going to be gone for a few days. I am not saying that this is abuse but over a period of time, lets say a few month, you repeatedly have someone sit for you then something must be done.

There is no point to a game that ends up being a perfect storm of sitting.

[the liquidator]

I'm involved in a nuclear game that's in the 150th round,3 players left. Maybe 3 rounds ago a player "left indefinitely" and a much higher-ranked player took over--already questionable,since we're now playing a general for colonel points. And yeah,you play a guy for 147 rounds,get to know his style,and along comes a replacement with a completely different style. But the main problem is that the replacement doesn't appear to be trying to win the game,but only to prevent me from doing so. While the game hadn't quite reached the tipping point,I had certainly attained a meaningful advantage over those 147 rounds--3 rounds later the replacement has used virtually all his armies in what amounts to a suicide against mine,leaving the 3rd player,who's just been turtling in Australia, with a likely win. Look,I'm a free member & so will never see the top of the leaderboard,but I DO play to win every game. So my question is,what are the responsibilities of a replacement? At the very least,shouldn't it be Hippocratic i.e. to do no harm?

[Ace Rimmer]

A sitter takes turns trying to win or at the least not deadbeat out of a build game. If they're supposed to "do no harm" then just miss the turns.

This whole thread is pointless until the admins get it through their head that account sitting is an issue that needs to be dealt with. While Mets means well, he's not going to have any luck getting the admins to actually do anything worthwhile with this thread.

tl;dr f*ck the admins, they don't understand CC

[the liquidator]

Trying to win,yes...not deadbeat,yes. But completely changing the game in favor of one player over another is unethical;in fact it's one of those things that makes you wonder: what kind of a gameplayer would even DO something like that? BTW I was eliminated from this game in 5 rounds after controlling it for 147...

[the liquidator]

And I don't even get the minuscule consolation of giving the guy a bad rating

[Metsfanmax]

This whole thread is pointless until the admins get it through their head that account sitting is an issue that needs to be dealt with. While Mets means well, he's not going to have any luck getting the admins to actually do anything worthwhile with this thread.

The best we can do right now is come to an agreement about how the current rules should best be interpreted. I too wish that we had a better system for sitting, but until then the rules should actually be clarified.