Conquer Cup III

[Gilligan]

It does not count towards the 4 games.

[Mr_Adams]

It does not count towards the 4 games.

Oh, good. I was hoping. I would have found out somewhere in the next couple of days anyways

[IcePack]

I thought account sitting was forbidden...from conquer cup tab:

"Account sitting is forbidden in Conquer Cup games"

Is this actually enforced?

Game 11066866 2012-05-09 20:52:33 - shoop76: friesus for shoop

[chapcrap]

I thought account sitting was forbidden...from conquer cup tab:

"Account sitting is forbidden in Conquer Cup games"

Is this actually enforced?

Game 11066866 2012-05-09 20:52:33 - shoop76: friesus for shoop

Hmm, I didn't know it was against the rules to account sit. I played against people who had sitters in CCII

[trinicardinal]

I thought account sitting was forbidden...from conquer cup tab:

"Account sitting is forbidden in Conquer Cup games"

Is this actually enforced?

Game 11066866 2012-05-09 20:52:33 - shoop76: friesus for shoop

Hmm, I didn't know it was against the rules to account sit. I played against people who had sitters in CCII

Its against the rules... If brought to the attention of the relevant mods it normally means a warning for the first offense... more serious action thereafter

[IcePack]

It's clearly written on the info tab.

[shoop76]

I see it clearly says it so I will take whatever consequences deemed appropriate, not that it states what those are. Obviously, however, something needs to be done with the account sitting sitting. If fries would have just taken my turn without saying anything no one would have known. Who knows how often this happens.

[Mr_Adams]

I thought account sitting was forbidden...from conquer cup tab:

"Account sitting is forbidden in Conquer Cup games"

Is this actually enforced?

Game 11066866 2012-05-09 20:52:33 - shoop76: friesus for shoop

Hmm, I didn't know it was against the rules to account sit. I played against people who had sitters in CCII

In my game, there was a player who had a round 1 account sitter. I figured since it took months for the game to start, and the games joined automatically, I wasn't going to bother with it. I mean, there was no warning for these games to start. if you secured your spot when the tournament was announced, you can't have been expected to have plans 3 months in advance.

[shoop76]

Looking back it obviously wasn't enforced in other CC II. So we have a rule, but no stated punishment and one that hasn't been enforced in the past.

[IcePack]

I see it clearly says it so I will take whatever consequences deemed appropriate, not that it states what those are. Obviously, however, something needs to be done with the account sitting sitting. If fries would have just taken my turn without saying anything no one would have known. Who knows how often this happens.

I got nothing against you. And I completely 100% agree - had he just taken a ten without posting no one would know. That's partly why I'm asking - why have a rule if it's not actively being checked in all the games for "sitting" or others not posting.

Either remove the stupid rule or enforce it, or I won't be supporting this new "feature tournament".

Thanks,
IcePack

[IcePack]

Looking back it obviously wasn't enforced in other CC II. So we have a rule, but no stated punishment and one that hasn't been enforced in the past.

Yes the was the other reason I posted. It says it's forbidden but no details as to what happens?
The murkiest clearly stated rule I've ever seen.

IcePack

[denominator]

I ran into this issue in CCII where a clanmate covered my turn because I didn't get there in time. I received a warning and statement that further offences would result in stricter consequences.

I'm fine with this system - however, the only reason I received a warning was because I brought it forward that I had broken the rules. There are way too many ways to not get caught for this (intentionally or unintentionally) and given the wording of the rule, I would expect there to be more stringent guidelines relating to catching and punishing the violators.

[IcePack]

I ran into this issue in CCII where a clanmate covered my turn because I didn't get there in time. I received a warning and statement that further offences would result in stricter consequences.

I'm fine with this system - however, the only reason I received a warning was because I brought it forward that I had broken the rules. There are way too many ways to not get caught for this (intentionally or unintentionally) and given the wording of the rule, I would expect there to be more stringent guidelines relating to catching and punishing the violators.

Agreed, if its not actively enforced why is there a rule to begin with? And to many ways to get around it...am now realizing i shouldn't have spent $5 on this.

icePack

[ad10r3tr0]

Nice, first round win by myself

[EagleofGreenErth]

Really kinda lame how a lot of these games are won purely based on whether you are automated to take your turn directly after a moron.

[TheForgivenOne]

I see it clearly says it so I will take whatever consequences deemed appropriate, not that it states what those are. Obviously, however, something needs to be done with the account sitting sitting. If fries would have just taken my turn without saying anything no one would have known. Who knows how often this happens.

I got nothing against you. And I completely 100% agree - had he just taken a ten without posting no one would know. That's partly why I'm asking - why have a rule if it's not actively being checked in all the games for "sitting" or others not posting.

Either remove the stupid rule or enforce it, or I won't be supporting this new "feature tournament".

Thanks,
IcePack

How do you expect us to enforce it? Do you want the Hunters/C&A mods to check all 128 games (That's how many are in teh first round) every day to make sure nobody say in the games? Because for someone like me, who's connection has diminished greatly, would take ages. Kinda like expecting us to enforce SD in games... instead of having the users report it to us.

[Rowney]

is there a 'conquer cup' league or is it a table format ? where do i go to see recent conquer cup results? In short how does this whole thing work?

[chapcrap]

I see it clearly says it so I will take whatever consequences deemed appropriate, not that it states what those are. Obviously, however, something needs to be done with the account sitting sitting. If fries would have just taken my turn without saying anything no one would have known. Who knows how often this happens.

I got nothing against you. And I completely 100% agree - had he just taken a ten without posting no one would know. That's partly why I'm asking - why have a rule if it's not actively being checked in all the games for "sitting" or others not posting.

Either remove the stupid rule or enforce it, or I won't be supporting this new "feature tournament".

Thanks,
IcePack

How do you expect us to enforce it? Do you want the Hunters/C&A mods to check all 128 games (That's how many are in teh first round) every day to make sure nobody say in the games? Because for someone like me, who's connection has diminished greatly, would take ages. Kinda like expecting us to enforce SD in games... instead of having the users report it to us.

It either has to be enforced or removed, doesn't it?

[IcePack]

I see it clearly says it so I will take whatever consequences deemed appropriate, not that it states what those are. Obviously, however, something needs to be done with the account sitting sitting. If fries would have just taken my turn without saying anything no one would have known. Who knows how often this happens.

I got nothing against you. And I completely 100% agree - had he just taken a ten without posting no one would know. That's partly why I'm asking - why have a rule if it's not actively being checked in all the games for "sitting" or others not posting.

Either remove the stupid rule or enforce it, or I won't be supporting this new "feature tournament".

Thanks,
IcePack

How do you expect us to enforce it? Do you want the Hunters/C&A mods to check all 128 games (That's how many are in teh first round) every day to make sure nobody say in the games? Because for someone like me, who's connection has diminished greatly, would take ages. Kinda like expecting us to enforce SD in games... instead of having the users report it to us.

The users can only report what they see. If no one types "sitting for blah blah" then we the players can't report anything, can we?
For a PAID event, I expect the rules to be enforced. Yes, its inconvenient for you, the MH's. But there are things that I can not do from a players point of view.

And if your going to have the rule for an event, which people look at when paying for the event, then make sure its enforced! Otherwise have it follow standard site rules. Or make the event free. Just like a regular tournament, the written rules have to be enforced.

Another site I play on has a IP scan for each game. Something like that could be utilized for this event, so that you dont have to use your slow connection to check each game. For those of us who sign up, scans on IP for this game can be done to ensure BOB's IP didn't play on JOES turn without writing anything in chat while babysitting, or throw up a red flag to those who "oversee" to take a look. Just an idea, not saying its the solution.

IcePack

[General Roy]

Game 11066787
I ended up as the overall winner.

[lackattack]

After discussing the Conquer Cup "no account sitting" rule with my fellow admins, we agreed that it is causing more problems than it solves. We are going to scrap this rule for all future Conquer Cups, and deal with any real abuse if it happens.

But we can't change things in the middle of a cup so the "no account sitting" rule will remain for the rest of Conquer Cup III. We feel that we are enforcing this rule as best as is reasonable. If you don't agree with how it is enforced, please rest assured that everyone who has been told to stop sitting has stopped, there have been no reports of actual cheating or abuse beyond errant sitting, and this will not even be an issue in the future.

[IcePack]

Thank you for the clarification / change.
IcePack

[HighlanderAttack]

Seems to me professionals should be running such a small tourney

[Mr_Adams]

After discussing the Conquer Cup "no account sitting" rule with my fellow admins, we agreed that it is causing more problems than it solves. We are going to scrap this rule for all future Conquer Cups, and deal with any real abuse if it happens.

But we can't change things in the middle of a cup so the "no account sitting" rule will remain for the rest of Conquer Cup III. We feel that we are enforcing this rule as best as is reasonable. If you don't agree with how it is enforced, please rest assured that everyone who has been told to stop sitting has stopped, there have been no reports of actual cheating or abuse beyond errant sitting, and this will not even be an issue in the future.

We appreciate the update. When can we start buying in to CCIV?

How were 3 people eliminated in round one? That's what the stats on the "Conquer Cup" page say

[AndyDufresne]

We appreciate the update. When can we start buying in to CCIV?

You can indeed pre-register for the next Conquer Cup, by either visiting the Conquer Cup and clicking on the 'Reserve your spot in advance' link, or visiting this one this link.

How were 3 people eliminated in round one? That's what the stats on the "Conquer Cup" page say

The eliminated in Round 1, are people that will eventually be slotted into the Second Chance Round. The eliminated thereafter, however, truly are eliminated!


--Andy