Account sitting abuse - Chariot of Fire, Pedronicus [warned]

[jpeter15]

josko, if you are going to rebut, PLEASE don't clap so LOUD. The clapping HURTS my ears even MORE so than Ace's "YELLING". Why is this thread so LOUD?!?!?!?!?!

[lord voldemort]

I think this one is wrong

[Chariot of Fire]

[preparation for rebuttal when time allows]

[Chariot of Fire]

Firstly a little bit of history and insight, as I feel it lends itself to why my name appears with more regularity than anyone else in TOFU when sitting an account.

I'm probably one of the elder players on this site - one who was fortunate enough to afford early retirement several years ago - and have been a very active member for almost four years. Given these circumstances I have never had a problem with being available 24/7 and have invested an extraordinary amount of time in this site, particularly with the clan scene (Untouchables, LoW and ultimately TOFU). One of the great benefits of being available on such a regular basis is that I become a very dependable and reliable sitter - one who is able to cover at short notice and, generally, do the right thing. I'm fairly sure reptile (from LoW) and Big Whiskey (THOTA) can attest to this - the former because he knows me from my time in his clan, and the latter as he knows me from covering for players who left the site. All of my clan members have my cell phone number and are able to contact me, as they do, in the event of any emergency or inability to get online.

In TOFU we operate an 'Account Sitters' thread so there is a quick reckoner to see who can cover for someone who looks like missing a turn. Here it is below:

Player - Sitter(s)

Chariot of Fire - JP, Dako
Shatners Bassoon - Chariot of Fire, tyche
Daryth - Chariot of Fire
jpeter15 - Shatners Bassoon, Chariot of Fire, Trapyoung, jake
Kiwi123 - Chariot of Fire, Sonic
Velvecarrots - The Bro, Chariot of Fire
TheBro - Velvecarrots, Chariot of Fire
tyche - Shatners, CoF, JP, Dako, IM
timmy - Shatners Bassoon, CoF
jake - Dako, slowreactor
Dako - Jake, Danryan ???, CoF
Buckman - CoF, Jake
Knight - CoF, Dako, JP
Iron Maid - tyche73, CoF
thezepman - Chariot
Trapyoung - jpeter15, CoF, Pedro, Stringy, Jake
OutSider - CoF, IM
Pedronicus - CoF, Donkey, Greycloak, Trapyoung
Stringy - CoF, Pedro, Squirly (Dragoon!), Trapyoung
elfish_lad - CoF, Dako, Trapyoung, JP, cachejob, Sonic
cachejob - CoF, Dako, Jake
sonic - CoF, cachejob

Last edited by Chariot of Fire on Sat Oct 16, 2010 9:39 am, edited 33 times in total.

As you can see (although it does need updating) there is an overwhelming frequency with which my name appears. In fact I cover for every player except those who are mods (and even then I will cover for them if they are away, with notice, and have revoked their mod privileges). This is because I'm available and reliable and has nothing to do with my ability to play a game better than anyone else or to try and gain some advantage. In fact....and here's the rub....I don't have BOB and I can't use that snap function, so more often than not it is extremely difficult for me to cover someone's turn in a foggy game (in which I'm not playing) as I haven't a clue what the oppo are holding and there's usually nothing in chat as I'm only stepping in at very short notice due to unexpected absence. I feel it's important for you, the reader, to know this as josko seems to have spent the better part of 100 hours dredging through the back catalogue of TOFU games to cite instances of where I've sat for others. Needless to say my name will occur far more often than anyone else's simply due to the circumstances I've explained above.

Another system we operate in TOFU is an 'Absence' thread (which now runs to 44 pages) so we are very methodical about having somebody covered whenever an impending absence is posted. Fortunately for us we operate such a system, as it has proved invaluable not only for its (intended) purpose but also, thanks to these nonsense allegations, to scour back through the history so we can determine what happened.

So, having looked at the cases cited against me in King Achilles' ruling may I now offer the following rebuttal and clear my name:

Game 9157574 5th June 2011- Dako revoked mod privileges as he was away. The move I played for him was a simple deploy - not even a game-decisive attack. Am I supposed to wait 23 hours and hope I'll be online to cover, or wake up at 4am to cover? Here is Dako's post in our absence forum (p.33):

Post by Dako on Sat Jun 04, 2011 4:37 am
I will leave for the week-end, suddenly, and will be back on Sunday night only. So I will be unavailable for the 36h starting in 12h from this post (8am GMT).
I asked to remove me from the mods for the time, so everything should be normal and usual persons should be able to sit for me. I will notify when I step out of the door.

Game 9043142 19th May 2011 - Played a turn for Steve when there were just 4 minutes left on the clock as I happened to notice it whilst checking our clan games. Josko also says in his allegation I played the turn for a mod, yet Steve only became a mod in mid June. Also, do people really think it's easy to step into an esc game in which I'm not playing and assess the situation with just 4 mins on the clock? Steve meanwhile did come online at the same time and played turns in other games, but I wasn't aware he was logging in. This is from the gamechat (kinda shows you my tough attitude):
2011-05-19 21:16:43 - sonicsteve: CoF for Sonic. Just caught it in time!
2011-05-19 21:17:37 - sonicsteve [team]: wtf!!! Lucky I ran through the active games and caught this with 4 minutes left on the clock (and red holding a bonus).
2011-05-19 21:18:23 - sonicsteve [team]: How the f*ck can you just leave a game sitting like this. No chat, no action = no chance!


Game 8687933 25th March 2011 - I took a turn for Dako at 6.41am in the morning having been up all night. The clock was about to run out. Dako himself had been out partying. Thing is, I was in no fit state to play turns for anyone. Here is my post in the Absence thread dated 24th March:

by Chariot of Fire on Thu Mar 24, 2011 12:10 pm
Today is the first of four days of an absolute rugbyfest and city-wide party (10s today, 7s Fri-Sun).
I'm leaving soon and I expect to be coming home only very intermittently over the next few days and will be raging drunk on every occasion I'm sure.
Please don't hold out till the last minute to take turns waiting for my input. It may either not be forthcoming or may be the ramblings of an incoherent bum

Here is the gamechat....it even has the specifics of the move posted by me a day earlier, so even a cook could have followed the advice and it didn't require me to personally take the turn. I only did so coz there was 1'14" on the clock and it was 6.41am in the morning and I'd been up all night. I knew Dako had gone out partying as he'd notified me.

2011-03-25 10:37:09 - Chariot of Fire [team]: Dako. Suggest 1 GHQ Hartmann (hit Gorodische Fields and keep red away from getting on Luftwaffe), 1 on R62/115 Art (bombard Rynok North and G71st Div U2), 1 on S2 Sheykin (hit Mameyev Hill, adv 0). Fort 1 from S2 to City B Inf.
2011-03-25 10:37:41 - Chariot of Fire [team]: oh, and Grain Silo hits Kuporosnoya (adv 0).
2011-03-26 05:29:33 - Chariot of Fire [team]: Looks like I might have to cover for Dako. He's gone out clubbing
2011-03-26 06:41:28 - Dako: CoF for Captain Slack
2011-03-26 09:15:32 - Dako: been a party night, thanks CoF

Game 8441498 27th Feb 2011 - I covered for Pedro having been notified he wouldn't have PC access. This is from gamechat:

2011-02-26 22:39:22 - Pedronicus [team]: Si, I'm going over my sisters this weekend. not sure if i'll be able to access the internet (normally end up in a mess down the pub with my brother in law)
2011-02-27 00:26:55 - Chariot of Fire [team]: Pedro. 3 on EF, 1 on QN, 3 on JG
2011-02-27 00:28:05 - Chariot of Fire [team]: EF goes to CF (u hold that card), QN hits QO (get teal <12), JG hits Cupcake (adv all).
2011-02-27 00:31:11 - Chariot of Fire [team]: Hit CE (adv 0) if u failed to get QO or if u have good numbers on CF.
2011-02-27 00:31:19 - Chariot of Fire [team]: Fort FG to CF
2011-02-27 13:29:30 - Pedronicus: CoF for Pedro, Sunday only

So, even having been told by Pete that he would probably not be available I still posted in gamechat the best move for him to play, hoping that he himself would be able to take it. I then waited until 19 hours had elapsed before playing the turn as it was the last chance for me to do so.

Game 8631053 15th March - I very reluctantly played this, but then Pete had notified me he'd be away so what else am I supposed to do? I was having terrible problems with my connection at the time and really didn't want to be playing CC. This is from the Absence forum dated 12th March:

by Chariot of Fire on Sat Mar 12, 2011 3:03 pm
Oh, I should have mentioned.....One problem I'm having is serious lag and constant timeouts from my PC and laptop at home - so much so that it's scary to start a turn in case I can't continue it. That is why this is coming to you from Pacific Coffee down the road, as I had to hightail down here to get into the site.
Spoke to my service provider and apparently there are complications due to the Japan quake, resulting in damaged cables and an overload in data traffic capability between Asia & N.America.

This went on for well over a week until the cable was fixed. Last thing I wanted to do was try playing an esc game on someone else's account so there was definitely no tactical advantage or abuse going on here.

So I ask you....where's the abuse? I either jumped in when the clock was low - and this having already posted in gamechat what move I'd recommend - or I covered due to notification of absence by the person I sat for. This is fairly normal practice isn't it and is certainly within the rules and spirit of the game.

In closing I'm going to copy what I earlier sent in a PM to King Achilles:

I can understand why you did what you did - I'm not really upset about it as you've been kind enough to unlock the thread so I may post a defence. It was more a courtesy thing really as I expected you to have notified me before posting a ruling.

I'll be sending something to the C&A thread a little later. Please bear in mind I've been on this site for four years now and I've always endeavoured to be fair and honest - people who cheat the system really get on my nerves - and I've been a real tyrant to my clan mates in respect of them missing turns because I always want them to play their own turns. I've never said "Hey let me cover it for you because I can do better" or anything like that. I think I've been incredibly fair and honest. For this reason.....even though I appreciate the warning is only a slight punishment....I would rather clear my name. The only thing I'm guilty of is spending too much time on this site and being willing to help others whenever they have a problem, but it's never been done to gain any advantage and has always been in the proper spirit of sitting only when necessary or when asked.

I hope in similar spirit my defence is given fair consideration and that I'm cleared of any wrongdoing.

Thank you.

[josko.ri]

Fist of all, I would like to know if this case is definitely decided, or it is possible to reopen a case that has already been decided by officials? if it is possible to reopen, I would like to also reopen the C&A case against me by posting rebuttal arguments vs the verdict done.

Second, I read Chariot of Fire's rebuttal arguments, and I have re-rebuttal arguments vs his ones. in several minutes after he posted his arguments, I worked only on the first case, and here is my re-rebuttal (more will follow if it will be confirmed that the case is reopened) :

Game 9157574 5th June 2011- Dako revoked mod privileges as he was away. The move I played for him was a simple deploy - not even a game-decisive attack. Am I supposed to wait 23 hours and hope I'll be online to cover, or wake up at 4am to cover? Here is Dako's post in our absence forum (p.33):

Post by Dako on Sat Jun 04, 2011 4:37 am
I will leave for the week-end, suddenly, and will be back on Sunday night only. So I will be unavailable for the 36h starting in 12h from this post (8am GMT).
I asked to remove me from the mods for the time, so everything should be normal and usual persons should be able to sit for me. I will notify when I step out of the door.

CoF sat the turn here with 23 hours left on timer:
Game 9157574 2011-06-05 11:21:34 - Terry Nutkins ended the turn
2011-06-05 12:16:00 - Dako: cof for dako (sunday only)

but, when CoF logged in as Dako, he also had 2 other games possible to play, but he chose to take the turn only in Game 9157574, and he did not take turns in other Dako's games, which had much less time left on timer (14 and 22 hours left). that games were played by Dako later that day. obviously, CoF knew that Dako will come home soon and be able to play his turns by himself, so choosing to sit only in the game with the most time left on timer and not sit in games with less time left on timer is obviously using account sitting for gaining tactical advantage.

those games which CoF could play when he sat for Dako that day, but he chose not to sit and leave it for Dako, are:
Game 9043473 2011-06-05 02:04:28 - morleyjoe ended the turn
2011-06-05 20:51:36 - Dako received 3 troops for 9 regions

Game 9173843 2011-06-05 10:00:17 - suski 01 ended the turn and got spoils
2011-06-05 15:18:38 - Dako received 8 troops for 26 regions

[Chariot of Fire]

Fist of all, I would like to know if this case is definitely decided, or it is possible to reopen a case that has already been decided by officials? if it is possible to reopen, I would like to also reopen the C&A case against me by posting rebuttal arguments vs the verdict done.

Second, I read Chariot of Fire's rebuttal arguments, and I have re-rebuttal arguments vs his ones. in several minutes after he posted his arguments, I worked only on the first case, and here is my re-rebuttal (more will follow if it will be confirmed that the case is reopened) :

Game 9157574 5th June 2011- Dako revoked mod privileges as he was away. The move I played for him was a simple deploy - not even a game-decisive attack. Am I supposed to wait 23 hours and hope I'll be online to cover, or wake up at 4am to cover? Here is Dako's post in our absence forum (p.33):

Post by Dako on Sat Jun 04, 2011 4:37 am
I will leave for the week-end, suddenly, and will be back on Sunday night only. So I will be unavailable for the 36h starting in 12h from this post (8am GMT).
I asked to remove me from the mods for the time, so everything should be normal and usual persons should be able to sit for me. I will notify when I step out of the door.

CoF sat the turn here with 23 hours left on timer:
Game 9157574 2011-06-05 11:21:34 - Terry Nutkins ended the turn
2011-06-05 12:16:00 - Dako: cof for dako (sunday only)

but, when CoF logged in as Dako, he also had 2 other games possible to play, but he chose to take the turn only in Game 9157574, and he did not take turns in other Dako's games, which had much less time left on timer (14 and 22 hours left). that games were played by Dako later that day. obviously, CoF knew that Dako will come home soon and be able to play his turns by himself, so choosing to sit only in the game with the most time left on timer and not sit in games with less time left on timer is obviously using account sitting for gaining tactical advantage.

those games which CoF could play when he sat for Dako that day, but he chose not to sit and leave it for Dako, are:
Game 9043473 2011-06-05 02:04:28 - morleyjoe ended the turn
2011-06-05 20:51:36 - Dako received 3 troops for 9 regions

Game 9173843 2011-06-05 10:00:17 - suski 01 ended the turn and got spoils
2011-06-05 15:18:38 - Dako received 8 troops for 26 regions

Wow, you really are one vindictive moron aren't you!

1. No the case shouldn't be decided because I never had the opportunity to submit a rebuttal (I only had internet access the other day)
2. What on Earth are you talking about re the case above? It's in black and white that Dako was away - see his post. Are you now saying I'm at fault for not playing turns in his other games at the same time and waiting to play them until later? And why would I take a turn in Game 9043473 when he has three team mates, one of whom could cover for him? And as you can see from the chat log, I played Game 9173843 for Dako, even with the clear stipulation 'Sunday only'. Can't make it much clearer than that.

Get a life you retard.

[josko.ri]

Fist of all, I would like to know if this case is definitely decided, or it is possible to reopen a case that has already been decided by officials? if it is possible to reopen, I would like to also reopen the C&A case against me by posting rebuttal arguments vs the verdict done.

Second, I read Chariot of Fire's rebuttal arguments, and I have re-rebuttal arguments vs his ones. in several minutes after he posted his arguments, I worked only on the first case, and here is my re-rebuttal (more will follow if it will be confirmed that the case is reopened) :

Game 9157574 5th June 2011- Dako revoked mod privileges as he was away. The move I played for him was a simple deploy - not even a game-decisive attack. Am I supposed to wait 23 hours and hope I'll be online to cover, or wake up at 4am to cover? Here is Dako's post in our absence forum (p.33):

Post by Dako on Sat Jun 04, 2011 4:37 am
I will leave for the week-end, suddenly, and will be back on Sunday night only. So I will be unavailable for the 36h starting in 12h from this post (8am GMT).
I asked to remove me from the mods for the time, so everything should be normal and usual persons should be able to sit for me. I will notify when I step out of the door.

CoF sat the turn here with 23 hours left on timer:
Game 9157574 2011-06-05 11:21:34 - Terry Nutkins ended the turn
2011-06-05 12:16:00 - Dako: cof for dako (sunday only)

but, when CoF logged in as Dako, he also had 2 other games possible to play, but he chose to take the turn only in Game 9157574, and he did not take turns in other Dako's games, which had much less time left on timer (14 and 22 hours left). that games were played by Dako later that day. obviously, CoF knew that Dako will come home soon and be able to play his turns by himself, so choosing to sit only in the game with the most time left on timer and not sit in games with less time left on timer is obviously using account sitting for gaining tactical advantage.

those games which CoF could play when he sat for Dako that day, but he chose not to sit and leave it for Dako, are:
Game 9043473 2011-06-05 02:04:28 - morleyjoe ended the turn
2011-06-05 20:51:36 - Dako received 3 troops for 9 regions

Game 9173843 2011-06-05 10:00:17 - suski 01 ended the turn and got spoils
2011-06-05 15:18:38 - Dako received 8 troops for 26 regions

Wow, you really are one vindictive moron aren't you!

1. No the case shouldn't be decided because I never had the opportunity to submit a rebuttal (I only had internet access the other day)
2. What on Earth are you talking about re the case above? It's in black and white that Dako was away - see his post. Are you now saying I'm at fault for not playing turns in his other games at the same time and waiting to play them until later?

Get a life you retard.

quoted before being edited

[Chariot of Fire]

Post above edited (with additional info) to make your post look even more retarded.

[jammyjames]

Childish nonsense this be....

Josko, i believe it is time to drop this now.

[elfish_lad]

I am hopeful, now that CoF is back from his holiday and able to defend himself, that CC will do the right thing and over-turn this warning. I believe the charges against him, filed by the complainant, are vindictive and without foundation.

E.

[reptile]

Josko, in all honesty i think you just need to drop it. I could post a whole page of stuff to defend CoF but really i dont have the time right now to do so. I have played along side CoF for a long time and i have been a member of CC since 2006. CoF fought beside me a long while also. To get to the point, i have met a lot of people on CC over the years. I have gotten to know Simon fairly well over this time. Of all of the people i have met on conquer club i respect CoF the most. I honestly think that you are wasting your time even posting anything.

As he posted a few posts above LoW too has a list of account sitters and yes i believe i still even have his phone number from when he was in LoW...for account sitting purposes. What you are saying just does not match up with the CoF that i know. In LoW we sit for eachother but NEVER HAVE WE DONE IT ONLY IN SPECIFIC GAMES. He is a very good person to have as a friend and a clan member for this very reason.

If i am going to miss a turn, i would choose a non tournament or non clan game to be the ones that i missed. There fore if i was account sitting for someone else and only had limited time, YES i would take the clan games and tournament games first as long as time allowed. I'm sure most would do the same.

I could look back and find a forum called TEN MOST RESPECTED PLAYERS ON CONQUER CLUB, and guess who was mentioned the most by random people on the site... i would say that CoF was either the top or in the top 3 for that list easily. There were tons of people i had never even seen or heard of before that were voting for him, even i was very surprised (and i already have held CoF high as it is) at just how many people knew and liked him. He does NOT PLAY CHEAP, CHEAT or anything of that sort (at least on purpose). I really think that you should just drop it. There are a ton of people that would go to bat for him. And I am for sure one of them, i am the Leader of Legends of War and always have been and even though he left us and took half of my guys with him he is still tops on my list.

I understand that you are upset with how you were punished for account sitting and how it happened and all, but seriously, this is ridiculous. I am surprised that this wasn't dismissed as soon as you created this thread.

CoF remains one of the most honest players i know on CC, and you wont find many here that know more people than i do. I speak from experience.

Lets all just move on off of this and enjoy Conquer Club. Spend our time doing other things rather than arguing over this.

[eddie2]

i to am 100 percent behind cof on the sitting side and have had a few convo's with josko in live chat ref this(he has mentioned players left right and center he is gonna report). But one thing i must say is that i wish cof had used different wording above. the use of the r****rd word i feel is offensive and should be banned from site. hopefully the mods finally bring in a noted for this word.(as it is the only fair way after so many refusals from mods that the word isnt in the same class as fa**ot)

[danryan]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but if Si got warned for sitting on this, I can tell you I and a large number of other active clan players would warrant a warning as well. I don't wait 24 hours for accounts that I'm sitting - I take the turns when I can regardless of time remaining. If that's a problem, well, all I can say is we need a sitting feature programmed in.

Until CC has a sitting feature the admins will basically be relying on each individual sitter's sense of decency to do the right thing and not abuse the accounts they are sitting.

Dan

[Ace Rimmer]

Fist of all, I would like to know if this case is definitely decided, or it is possible to reopen a case that has already been decided by officials? if it is possible to reopen, I would like to also reopen the C&A case against me by posting rebuttal arguments vs the verdict done.

If you feel that the wrong verdict was reached in your case, please submit an eticket to KA with your rebuttal. I for one would love to see your rebuttal though.

[Leehar]

What I'm having trouble understanding is why this case is so different from the previous one against josko (other than josko is assumably far less regarded).

CoF mentioned as one of his main points that he's a sitter primarily because of availability and reliability, and not for tactical advantage, but how does that differ from josko's sitting on a relatively frequent basis?

With regards to the vindictiveness aspect, that seems to be fairly obvious, and it just seems to be a repetitive cycle from the beginning of the tofu-kort saga, tofu complain about josko for ... notes, kort don't back down on disqualification criteria etc etc where nobody is completely comfortable in dropping it. This particular subject seems to be as a result of seemingly double standards exhibited from the initial josko case by tofu, whereby there was supposed culpability on their part already, as evidenced here.

I personally wasn't very enamored with the initial warning with josko and I'm still not sure on that ruling which is why I still can't perfectly see what CoF did here, but I assume it's always been required for stricter control over how we perform our sitting and why even more due care is required and why even I've tried to avoid scenario's where I could be caught as culpable with regards to sitting, but has still had to evidence missed and possible missed turns in games where it could be a lot more comfortable.

[Rodion]

That's an interesting defense, but it is mostly based on appeal to reputation. It doesn't work that way against undeniable evidence (check the Commander62890 case for reference).

For instance, I'll give you 2 clear cut cases (in my view). And that is only considering 2011, your clan got a huge freebie with this abuse prescription of not really considering things from 2010, but I digress.

Game 9157574 - the point here is that account sitting parts from the premise that a player will not be able to take the turn for himself. There are 12 posts that can be used as evidence that Dako HAD access before his 24-hour deadline would expire and therefore your sitting was not in compliance to the strict CC sitting guidelines ("only sit if in danger of missing the turn").

Game 8687933 - same as above, but change "12 posts after the sitting took place" for "11 posts before the sitting took place".

As a reminder, you were pretty quick in condemning KoRT back in the Josko case.
Bones' case on KoRT basically had logs of forum posts and other played games showing that the players that Josko had sat for were online in the 24-hour span of the turn.
Here, Josko's case on TOFU basically has logs of forum posts and other played games showing that the players that CoF had sat for were online in the 24-hour span of the turn.
A different ruling would defy both logic and law.

[BoganGod]

Please forgive me if I haven't gotten the wording entirely correct here. Something Dako posted in either this or the josko.ri case.
"This should be looked on as sitting abuse rather than cheating, no one is suggesting that the player deliberately attempted to gain an unfair advantage." I think that would be safe to say about both this case, and the case against josko.ri. Dako please forgive me if I've paraphrased you incorrectly.

I don't have an axe to grind against the convicted in this thread, or against josko.ri. I can understand josko.ri's anger and frustration - the thread accusing him remained open and went to multiple pages, his name was dragged through the mud and has become a joke, and a tool for people to bait fellow members of Kort. You can't tell me that was fair. After some very intense lobbying by tofu, this thread was locked whilst CoF was on holiday. Lucky for him, as I'm sure this thread would have blown out to 20+ pages of partisan posturing, and jealous character assassination.

Essentially C&A has become a kangaroo court of popular opinion. Used to bring spiteful and vindictive claims forward in a petty attempt to ruin players reputation. If people really cared about the game, they would be making these types of accusations using E-Tickets.

In the words of jefjef - When you sling shit expect some to stick you and the smell to follow wherever you roam...

There have been a lot of personal grudge motivated threads in here of late, and this forum smells like shit.

I don't believe the CoF takes all the tofu turns. Nor do I believe that josko.ri takes all the Kort turns. Both of them would be mad to even want to, let alone attempt to do so.

Lets hope for the communities sake, and the clan community in particular. That this is the last public character assassination thread we see in here in a long time.

[lord voldemort]

Until the site develop a sitter rule...or come up with clear cut sitting rules on what can and cannot be done....they simply cant warn or punish players for these grey area issues.

And as for josko...my understanding was his intent of the sitting as well as adding people (moonchild?) to games when he was absent from the site for a significant period of time

[drunkmonkey]

And as for josko...my understanding was his intent of the sitting as well as adding people (moonchild?) to games when he was absent from the site for a significant period of time

Your misunderstanding is another reason this whole situation has become a joke. Hell, the part in bold wasn't even mentioned in josko's case.

Edit: I found it mentioned by CoF a couple times in the thread, but it had nothing to do with the case being investigated, nor the verdict.

[lord voldemort]

Im quite sure it had something to do with the case...seeing as i helped with the ruling at the time

[Ace Rimmer]

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.

Game 9157574 - the point here is that account sitting parts from the premise that a player will not be able to take the turn for himself. There are 12 posts that can be used as evidence that Dako HAD access before his 24-hour deadline would expire and therefore your sitting was not in compliance to the strict CC sitting guidelines ("only sit if in danger of missing the turn").

I disagree with your interpretation of the CC sitting guidelines, and that this is abuse. There is nothing that says it has to be within the last hour of the gameclock or anything like that. For example, right now I am sitting for trapyoung (who is away from the site for an extended period of time). In Game 9080587 I am not waiting 23 hours to take his turn, as I know I'll be taking it regardless of how long it waits. If I do not take the turn, it will be missed as he is away. In this case, Dako tells CoF (AND OTHERS) that he will be away for 36 hours and asks them to take his turns. CoF takes one, not worrying about the gameclock. Dako returns earlier than planned and posts in the forum. At the time that CoF took the turns, it was not account sitting abuse - Dako was expected to be away, and nothing in the rules states that you must wait to account sit for someone.

Also in case anyone is looking for it, here is KA's verdict on josko's case: https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 5#p3229429

[skillfull]

I say let's stop this fighting and start enjoying CC like we did before all this mess started.
I have done sitting for monkis since i joined TSM hundreds of times and i am sure most of you have done the same.
I am neither with Si nor with Josko on this fight, I am just saying that this is only a game and we play it for fun.So let's make a friendly tourney and all these guys who have written here could participate in teams of 2's or 3's or 4's.
I dont understand why some guys of CC community accuse both Josko and Cof and not me, since I have done the same .When you sat for someone you never wait till the time gets down to 2-3hours cause you simply have a life and you cant be logged in all day.

PS. Let's focus on the fighting inside the games and not on this one guys.

[Ace Rimmer]

CoF mentioned as one of his main points that he's a sitter primarily because of availability and reliability, and not for tactical advantage, but how does that differ from josko's sitting on a relatively frequent basis?

Josko was not found guilty because he is most available or sits frequently, but because his teammates (Rodion and moonchild) chose to allow him to take their turns when they did not know his plans. They intentionally left turns for josko to play.

With regards to the vindictiveness aspect, that seems to be fairly obvious, and it just seems to be a repetitive cycle from the beginning of the tofu-kort saga, tofu complain about josko for ... notes, kort don't back down on disqualification criteria etc etc where nobody is completely comfortable in dropping it. This particular subject seems to be as a result of seemingly double standards exhibited from the initial josko case by tofu, whereby there was supposed culpability on their part already, as evidenced here.

Why do you feel that the josko abuse case/verdict has anything to do with TOFU? G1 put in the report, not TOFU. G1 asked TOFU for additional information which we provided. If we wanted to pursue a C&A case against josko for the TOFU/KORT clan war, we would have done so at the time of the war. We chose to not say anything after all the other shit went down between us. This report is vindictiveness of josko, not TOFU.

[Bones2484]

CoF mentioned as one of his main points that he's a sitter primarily because of availability and reliability, and not for tactical advantage, but how does that differ from josko's sitting on a relatively frequent basis?

Josko was not found guilty because he is most available or sits frequently, but because his teammates (Rodion and moonchild) chose to allow him to take their turns when they did not know his plans. They intentionally left turns for josko to play.

This ^. Without Rodion admitting to this in a game chat, we never would have even considered doing the research in the first place.

And you can also mark me down as someone who will take turns for my clanmates sooner than their turn is about to expire if they are on vacation and not able to access the site. It is completely moronic to expect sitters to take turns at all hours of the day just to make sure turns are taken within the last hour. If someone is away, I am only logging into their account maybe once per day to push back all turns they currently have active. The only reason I listed the time remaining in my post against Josko was to get a timeframe between when players were active so I could check it against forum posts and other games; it had nothing to do with making sure he was taking turns within the last hour.

But like I said on one of the earlier pages here, I have not done research on this case and don't ever intend to do it. My only thought at this time is wondering why they seemed to have made a ruling before CoF made his defense? Was it done in private or did the mods choose to not wait for him to return like was asked very early on?

[drunkmonkey]

CoF mentioned as one of his main points that he's a sitter primarily because of availability and reliability, and not for tactical advantage, but how does that differ from josko's sitting on a relatively frequent basis?

Josko was not found guilty because he is most available or sits frequently, but because his teammates (Rodion and moonchild) chose to allow him to take their turns when they did not know his plans. They intentionally left turns for josko to play.

Did you overlook the several wall chats posted, where Pedronicus was online while his turn was up, but asked CoF to play for him? Look back at the first page:
"running out of time in that 13 colonies game. just over and hour left"
"to be honest Si, there are 3 games that at this moment in time are live and I'm off to the regionals (poker) tomorrow and I have no idea I'll be home before the time runs out. Could you take my turn on my 3 games at the top of my list? Thanks"

and my personal favorite,
"I'm going now. Left europa for you just in case your dice can swing some sort of advantage"