account sitting issues..new rule? <updated - see 1st post>

[Timminz]

we were on seperate IP and did not babysit yet at one point were blocked from playing with one another because we coordinated our attacks over the phone...

in standard games

[Soloman]

we were on seperate IP and did not babysit yet at one point were blocked from playing with one another because we coordinated our attacks over the phone...

in standard games

Nice cut and paste of information to redirect and confuse, that is not what happened we appealed the block on us playing Team Games and it was removed. We are astill allowed to play standard games and have no restrictions against each other because when put against scrutiny all accusations fell flat(meaning no secret alliance)but your post is exactly the problem that is occuring and the reason why we quit playing Team Games and only occasionally play against each other... So please feel free to cut and paste some more hate...

[Timminz]

So, you're saying that you were blocked because you co-ordinated moves with a team mate?

[Soloman]

So, you're saying that you were blocked because you co-ordinated moves with a team mate?

yup we were but again as Isaid once I and my brother appealed they reviewed and removed the block it happened a long time ago over a year. If you would like a link I would be happy to provide

[dividedbyzero]

So, one of us pms the other and says, "Let's find a few games to get into." Let's say he sends that message to me. For the record, we don't live in the same time zone. So, at any rate, I wake up, log in and see the message, so I go looking around for games. Maybe I see a fun looking game in the public section with two spots left. I've got one of two choices, either I sign up and then log in as him and sign him up, or, I can "do the right thing" and wait 3 hours until he wakes up and hope the game still has the openings (it won't) and hope he decides to log in immediately. Of course, I don't want to just sign up without him because I'm not looking for a random partner, I'm looking to start a game with my usual partner. So, kindly explain exactly who is hurt by the fact that I sign in as him and join a doubles game that he and I decided that I was going to go find us.

I have this "problem" myself. One of my favorite people to play doubles games with is American_Ninja. He lives in Japan. I live in the US. I often start games for us. I can either wait the several days it generally takes for our schedules to sync up or I can sign in as him and join the games so we actually play on the same team together. I never actually take his turns unless he is out of town or something and I always announce it. It's never been a problem for anyone I know of that we've played.

Until the site can do reservations for partners, I don't see any good way around this other than to just not play games together unless we can be online at the same time. I don't think that's the best solution here. Why are we making rules to cover the abuse of a very small number of players ? It would seem to me that this is a fine place to exercise the judgement of the mods on a case by case basis instead of putting another law on the CC books.

dbz

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

So, one of us pms the other and says, "Let's find a few games to get into." Let's say he sends that message to me. For the record, we don't live in the same time zone. So, at any rate, I wake up, log in and see the message, so I go looking around for games. Maybe I see a fun looking game in the public section with two spots left. I've got one of two choices, either I sign up and then log in as him and sign him up, or, I can "do the right thing" and wait 3 hours until he wakes up and hope the game still has the openings (it won't) and hope he decides to log in immediately. Of course, I don't want to just sign up without him because I'm not looking for a random partner, I'm looking to start a game with my usual partner. So, kindly explain exactly who is hurt by the fact that I sign in as him and join a doubles game that he and I decided that I was going to go find us.

I have this "problem" myself. One of my favorite people to play doubles games with is American_Ninja. He lives in Japan. I live in the US. I often start games for us. I can either wait the several days it generally takes for our schedules to sync up or I can sign in as him and join the games so we actually play on the same team together. I never actually take his turns unless he is out of town or something and I always announce it. It's never been a problem for anyone I know of that we've played.

Until the site can do reservations for partners, I don't see any good way around this other than to just not play games together unless we can be online at the same time. I don't think that's the best solution here. Why are we making rules to cover the abuse of a very small number of players ? It would seem to me that this is a fine place to exercise the judgement of the mods on a case by case basis instead of putting another law on the CC books.

dbz

it is against CC rules to start/join a game with 2 different accounts

[dividedbyzero]

it is against CC rules to start/join a game with 2 different accounts

OK, so shall we ban me now or later ? And how is that making the site better, Johnny ? That's what I ask here.

I have not and do not cheat. I feel that I play with honor and that I'm here to have a good time and play as strong of a game as I can. I think there are many that will attest to that.

I don't want cheaters here any more than you do. I applaud the fact that you find lots of multis. I understand why you don't like people playing all of the turns for their partners.

I fail to see how your stance on this issue helps the site in any meaningful way. I can be convinced if you will explain it. Since I don't take turns, just set the games up, why is that a problem ? Perhaps Lack will get the reservation system online and that will make it a moot point.

I believe in rules and respect rules. In this case, I think the baby is either being thrown out with the bathwater or already has been.

[Vace Cooper]

I havent voted yet... I dont like any of the options.

[TeeGee]

Until the site can do reservations for partners,

Isn't that why we have private games?

[GabonX]

I still am I am getting active in pointing out hypocrisy in these matters and people.

I hope we can get the higher ups to recognise how all this interconects and that it is not all about the game points but the fun of playing with people and making friends(All the hater should just become friends with each other and there would be no Problem).

Yes!

Now if you would just practice what you preach by not being a "hater" and a hypocrite we would be on to something...

[MrMoody]

Lets not get sidetracked with other rules that are being broken. just because you find it to difficult or feel you don't need to stay within a given rule because you don't like or care for it. Some members have come forward to admit to breaking rules in this thread.


The topic is/was strategic babysitting. not about baby puke or if your excuse was the best this week for needing a babysitter. simply not taking your turn in a timely fashion resulting in the need for a babysitter because it is strategically better. there are a lot of ways cc can make changes to solve this. simply letting babysitters only deploy would change things. not that i feel that's the best solution. only want this thread to stay on topic and we can discuss other rule changes in a different thread

[detlef]

Lets not get sidetracked with other rules that are being broken. just because you find it to difficult or feel you don't need to stay within a given rule because you don't like or care for it. Some members have come forward to admit to breaking rules in this thread.


The topic is/was strategic babysitting. not about baby puke or if your excuse was the best this week for needing a babysitter. simply not taking your turn in a timely fashion resulting in the need for a babysitter because it is strategically better. there are a lot of ways cc can make changes to solve this. simply letting babysitters only deploy would change things. not that i feel that's the best solution. only want this thread to stay on topic and we can discuss other rule changes in a different thread

I don't think many of the instances being brought up are getting sidetracked. They are simply being mentioned to point out that dogmatic rules like this are rather extreme ways of dealing with something that's likely not that big of a deal. However, because the likes of JR bitch and scream and jump up and down, there's a knee jerk reaction to constrict the manner in which fair minded players are able to enjoy the site.

The only rules that restrict play should be those that prevent people from achieving an un-fair advantage over fair playing opponents in games. Basically multis and secret alliances. There's also been a strong argument for not allowing playing your partner's turn in freestyle. Frankly, I could give two shits about the rules of freestyle because I never play it.

Everything else is just bitching for bitching sake. JR says he wants to know who he's playing against. Well, if one guy takes all the moves for his team, guess what, nobody making moves in that game is somebody you didn't know you were playing. The irony, of course, is that the only way you'll not know who you're playing against is if JR gets his way and teammates aren't allowed to babysit for one another because an outside party will now be making moves. JR claims that this rule needs to be made because players he has on ignore are now able to make moves against him. Once again, that can only be actually true if somebody other than one of the team members must babysit because everyone in the game against him must, by definition, not be on his ignore list.

So, can we establish once and for all that these arguments aren't worth a damn?

I really think it is not too much to ask that somebody, anybody point to a body of evidence showing where teammates taking each other's turns in a sequential game caused a real and unfair advantage over another team before we needlessly enact yet more rules.

Can't we just be freaking adults here?

[dividedbyzero]

I applaud the desire to stay on topic, MrMoody.

I think here's the crux of the biscuit:

How does one separate strategic babysitting from a legitimate need ? Who makes that call ? Is it based on behavior over time or a single action ? How do you set the arbitrary limits on what is reasonable or not ?

I'm sure there's lots going on behind the scenes, but these questions are still hanging out there. Owen presented his arguments in a humorous way, but they have merit.

I guess I'm still of the opinion that having a blanket rule isn't the best idea and that a case by case ruling is still the best way.
Of course, Neph's idea of getting rid of freestyle really seems to solve most of the problem, doesn't it ?

[greenoaks]

if you don't have a blanket rule then the mods don't have anything to compare each case to to decide if it should be allowed to slide.

[dividedbyzero]

if you don't have a blanket rule then the mods don't have anything to compare each case to to decide if it should be allowed to slide.

I disagree. There's always been the "unwritten rules" over time. I guess one could argue that not having an established rule could lead to moderator abuse ?

How's this for a blanket rule that might stop this once and for all:

- Account babysitting is only to be used when no other option for turn taking is possible. Using account babysitting as a legal way to play multiple accounts for strategy shall not be tolerated.

That puts it in writing and sets a framework that the mods could use on a case by case basis. Could something like that work ?

[detlef]

if you don't have a blanket rule then the mods don't have anything to compare each case to to decide if it should be allowed to slide.

Thing is, you guys are acting like these "blanket rules" are some kind of magic bullet. OK, so this whole thing got started over freestyle, right? But then JR and others got all fired up about some mythical manner in which somehow taking your teammates turn in sequential gives you an unfair advantage.

OK, so let's say it can't be a teammate, right? Isn't that the most popular deal? OK, well that pretty much benefits clans because they've got a much larger group of people to choose from who have their back. Also, if somehow players are, in fact, abusing this luxury in sequential games (though again, nobody has really shown how), what's to stop two guys from taking turns taking the turns of whatever low ranking players account they've pirated? I mean, that would be within the rules, right? That guy's not a teammate. So, on it goes. So you guys come up with another magical rule, and then the cheaters find another way, and then you come up with another rule.

Meanwhile, the rest of us who are simply trying to enjoy ourselves have to continually deal with this BS.

By the way, after you wrongly implied that those on my side of this argument were cheaters trying to cover our asses, you challenged me to explain why I was "in a huff". I rose to that and explained, once again what a weak assed argument you guys have. Now, before you come up with something else, be a dear and address the post I so gamely wrote in response to your challenge. You can't continue to argue here if you're going to ignore every time you're made to look silly.

[greenoaks]

By the way, after you wrongly implied that those on my side of this argument were cheaters trying to cover our asses, you challenged me to explain why I was "in a huff". I rose to that and explained, once again what a weak assed argument you guys have. Now, before you come up with something else, be a dear and address the post I so gamely wrote in response to your challenge. You can't continue to argue here if you're going to ignore every time you're made to look silly.

in your post you admit to breaking the sites written rules. you admit you are a cheat. you have made it quite clear you believe you should be allowed to cheat but the cheating of others (who may have 'broken' an unwritten rule) should not be tolerated.

i stand by my earlier comment.

the most vocal players regarding exempting sequential teams games from the same rule as everyone else seems to be those who run multiple accounts.

[gloryordeath]

FYI, this was already up for discussion by the mods before lord starting whining about his warning.

That is uneccessary and cheap wicked.

Furthermore, thanks for keeping your Community, you know the one that pays for all of this, in the loop.

well said, and why can't we set "some mods" to foe list?

[greenoaks]

why can't we set "some mods" to foe list?

you can't because the foe list stops you from receiving pm's from the person and they want to make sure we get our warnings and bans.

[detlef]

By the way, after you wrongly implied that those on my side of this argument were cheaters trying to cover our asses, you challenged me to explain why I was "in a huff". I rose to that and explained, once again what a weak assed argument you guys have. Now, before you come up with something else, be a dear and address the post I so gamely wrote in response to your challenge. You can't continue to argue here if you're going to ignore every time you're made to look silly.

in your post you admit to breaking the sites written rules. you admit you are a cheat. you have made it quite clear you believe you should be allowed to cheat but the cheating of others (who may have 'broken' an unwritten rule) should not be tolerated.

i stand by my earlier comment.

the most vocal players regarding exempting sequential teams games from the same rule as everyone else seems to be those who run multiple accounts.

I hope for your sake that you're just rattling cages and don't actually believe the shit you are saying.

[Timminz]

why can't we set "some mods" to foe list?

you can't because the foe list stops you from receiving pm's from the person and they want to make sure we get our warnings and bans.

the foe list does NOT stop you from recieving PM's

[wacicha]

why can't we set "some mods" to foe list?

you can't because the foe list stops you from receiving pm's from the person and they want to make sure we get our warnings and bans.

great now I am a foe Glory lol

[gloryordeath]

LOL no wac you are most definitely on my friend list. That was a dig at our wickedly famous mod with the sharp tongue that always is so quick to assume the worst in everyone on matter if it is the first time talking to the or the 100th. I really thought I would get spanked or at least yelled at for it (kind of a let down ).

[greenoaks]

why can't we set "some mods" to foe list?

you can't because the foe list stops you from receiving pm's from the person and they want to make sure we get our warnings and bans.

the foe list does NOT stop you from receiving PM's

for those of you who do not want to receive pm's from your foes follow OP's instructions.

Blocking PMs from Foes:

While it is not a standard feature to have anyone on your Foe list blocked from sending you a PM, it is possible with the use of the new "filter system" that has been added to your Inbox. This will allow you to automatically delete messages from players you wish to have no contact from.

Follow these steps:

1. Go to Inbox and then click on the tab labeled: Rules, Folders & Settings
2. In the dropdown menu underneath "Add a New Rule" select "Sender" and hit "Next"
3. Once again in the dropdown, select "is foe" and hit "Next"
4. Lastly, select "Delete Message" from the dropdown and hit "Add Rule"

This will make it so that any messages you receive from a person on your Foe list are automatically deleted when they arrive.

[owenshooter]

green oaks, this can be found elsewhere. can we please keep this on topic? thank you. some interesting
points of view thus far... even those counter to mine... only a few more days, and this thread will no longer be a sticky, and float to the bottom of the GD like uneaten fish food in my kids fish tank... thank you.-0