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

[Timminz]

That seems to me like it's almost there. There's still the problem of unexpected absences from CC. Maybe add a stipulation that a team mate may play one round, but they cannot take another turn without getting the consent of everyone. I think this would be necessary since there likely won't be time to get everyone to agree before the turn gets missed, and, with an unexpected absence, you're not likely to need the sitter for more than one round, but if you do, you'll have time to get consent or find a different sitter) before the next turn.

[owenshooter]

Thezz - Lets say Abuse is the unfair gaining of advantage in a game. Now that unfair is what is open to perception and no matter how tightly we define it, someone will always define it differently than you or I and that is where the problems come in.

i appreciate the effort that went into this response, and as you know, i'm more than willing to give up the luxury of sitting for the good of the site. however, this section still sticks with me. nobody has shown or given or even explained, a concrete example of how an advantage is gained in sequential play. as soon as this is explained, i have absolutely no problem with even the strictest of baby sitting bylaws...-0

[Twill]

Timm, No go on that one in my book - It would have to be a waiver at the start of the game or your sitter has to come from outside the game.

By allowing sitters from outside the game you still have a fair bit of flexibility for unseen absences but there is no chance for someone to cry foul about strategic sitting.

Owen, again, the problem is not if there IS an advantage but if there is a PERCEIVED advantage.
All you have to do in a seq game is post:

Hey folks, just in case it's needed can we agree that team mates sitting occasional turns is ok so that we can have real lives as well?

I can see this becoming a standard question at the start of team games if this rule goes into effect...

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

dont even bother asking me if it is "yes" or "no". My response will be no reguardless if the other players agree. Im am letting you know now and will report any example in the cheating forum if players from the same team are moving for each other.

thanks

[firstholliday]

dont even bother asking me if it is "yes" or "no". My response will be no reguardless if the other players agree. Im am letting you know now and will report any example in the cheating forum if players from the same team are moving for each other.

thanks

No problem there, cooks don't babysit.

[owenshooter]

Owen, again, the problem is not if there IS an advantage but if there is a PERCEIVED advantage.

well, you see the sticking point here... there IS an advantage in freestyle... the PERCEIVED advantage in sequential is just that, perceived. whatever, we are taking baby-steps here, and the fact that you took a suggestion and updated it, shows guys like jiminski, that it isn't a closed debate.-0

[detlef]

First off, I can get with the latest version where if you get the OK from other teams, all is good.

I must say, however, that I do find it quite humorous that a rule is being created not to stop someone from take a real advantage because of a "perceived" advantage. Essentially, we are legislating against something make-believe. That appears to be stepping onto the proverbial slippery slope.

Oh, and I just have to ask. When you say you've gotten a lot of complaints, does that mean complaints from a lot of people or a lot of complaints from Johnny Rockets? Certainly you understand how that little detail would matter.

[Timminz]

I would prefer the opposite rule. Anyone who is NOT ok with team sitting on occasion, must state so at the start of every game. This would have the same effect, but would require extra thought and effort (albeit small) for a smaller group of people. It seems pretty clear that fewer people are opposed to legitimate team-sitting, than support it.

Net effect is exactly the same.

Inconveniences fewer players.

Everyone's happy. well, almost everybody

[owenshooter]

I must say, however, that I do find it quite humorous that a rule is being created not to stop someone from take a real advantage because of a "perceived" advantage. Essentially, we are legislating against something make-believe. That appears to be stepping onto the proverbial slippery slope.

no, no... it is a clear and present danger... just like the steroid abuse that is going on behind the scenes here at CC... lack and twill know it is happening, but with the roids have come increased paid memberships... of course they are going to turn the other way, as long as it aids the growth and development of CC!!!

anyway, this new version is a step in the right direction... i hope this continues to grow and morph into something viable that all of us cheaters can abide by... thanks again for making this a sticky again, mr. twill...-0

[DiM]

nobody has shown or given or even explained, a concrete example of how an advantage is gained in sequential play. as soon as this is explained, i have absolutely no problem with even the strictest of baby sitting bylaws...-0

if you look a few pages back i already answered to this question with an example of sequential abuse:

you and your partners start a doubles game. you each have 2000 points.
i have 3000 and join. but if i join with my other 3000 points partner i'll only get 15 points for the win. so i ask a cook with 1 point to join with me and then i have my regular partner to babysit for the cook. we beat you and get 30 points.
then repeat the process only this time my regular partner joins with the cook and i sit for the cook.
30 easy points for each of us (and 60 for the cook).
you may ask why not play normally and win both games it would mean the same number of points overall. well the reason is simple.
1. the element of surprise. if a cook joins after a high ranked player in a team game you'll assume he squeezed in by accident instead of the regular partner so you automatically underestimate the opponents and lose.
2. while me and my partner win 30 each you guys lose 60 each (that's good for weakening competition)

another example would be this:

skyT and his team start a sequential triples waiting for noobs to join.

johnny hates skyT and he asks 2 cooks to join that game with him then he proceeds in taking turns for all 3 thus gaining a big advantage.
or he simply lets 3 cooks join then asks them for permission to take their turns. he risks no points but has the chance to cripple skyT and his partners with 100 points

[Night Strike]

Owen, again, the problem is not if there IS an advantage but if there is a PERCEIVED advantage.
All you have to do in a seq game is post:

Hey folks, just in case it's needed can we agree that team mates sitting occasional turns is ok so that we can have real lives as well?

I can see this becoming a standard question at the start of team games if this rule goes into effect...

So the options are:

1. Play private games with friends/clan mate who won't care if your partner sits or account.

OR

2. Specifically state that phrase in the game chat.

#1 is probably what I would do, and #2 is a huge waste of time. And how would tournaments be affected?? There are many doubles tournaments, and several have games that start at the same time with the same players. So does that mean everyone has to post in each of those games?? HUGE waste of time. Most tournament teams announce when someone is taking their turns for a short time, so this entire idea is unnecessary at best.

The only other option I see is for the organizer to specify in the tournament announcement that "Teammates are allowed to sit the other's account in cases of an emergency as long as it is mentioned in chat." Another waste of time/space in my view.

[jiminski]

I can see this becoming a standard question at the start of team games if this rule goes into effect....

So the options are:

1. Play private games with friends/clan mate who won't care if your partner sits or account.

OR

2. Specifically state that phrase in the game chat.

#1 is probably what I would do, and #2 is a huge waste of time. And how would tournaments be affected?? There are many doubles tournaments, and several have games that start at the same time with the same players. So does that mean everyone has to post in each of those games?? HUGE waste of time. Most tournament teams announce when someone is taking their turns for a short time, so this entire idea is unnecessary at best.

The only other option I see is for the organizer to specify in the tournament announcement that "Teammates are allowed to sit the other's account in cases of an emergency as long as it is mentioned in chat." Another waste of time/space in my view.

It is HUGE waste of time having to ask a brief question?



NB. I reckon it took me around 1 second per word........ including thinking time and deciding not to use Large or Huge font on 'HUGE'.


But i suppose you could have a clause which states agreement to the rule by signing-up for a Tourney ... hmmm i don't know, are we asking for trouble by offering exceptions? .. me i know where you are coming from mate; am happy to keep things as they are right at this moment but if we change it has to be right and not a halfway house which no one is satisfied with.

[Timminz]

It is HUGE waste of time having to ask a brief question?



NB. I reckon it took me around 1 second per word........ including thinking time and deciding not to use large font on 'HUGE'.

while the inconvenience may be small at any one time, it's still there. If people who were against team-sitting were made to post something at the start of every game, it would affect a lot fewer people.

[Night Strike]

It is HUGE waste of time having to ask a brief question?


NB. I reckon it took me around 1 second per word........ including thinking time and deciding not to use Large or Huge font on 'HUGE'.

In many of my doubles tournaments, I have several that start at the same time. For Amazing Race, there are 3 games that start at the same time. For Prime's Doubles Season, we have a minimum of 2 games that start each time. It would get very annoying/tedious to go type that in every single one of them when I'm trying to just play those games. And I don't even play in that many doubles tournaments; others play in many more.

I agree with tim's idea of only those opposed to it posting in the game chat. And it's understood in tournaments that you tell your opponents when someone else is taking your turns (even if that person is your teammate).

[jiminski]

It is HUGE waste of time having to ask a brief question?


NB. I reckon it took me around 1 second per word........ including thinking time and deciding not to use Large or Huge font on 'HUGE'.

In many of my doubles tournaments, I have several that start at the same time. For Amazing Race, there are 3 games that start at the same time. For Prime's Doubles Season, we have a minimum of 2 games that start each time. It would get very annoying/tedious to go type that in every single one of them when I'm trying to just play those games. And I don't even play in that many doubles tournaments; others play in many more.

I agree with tim's idea of only those opposed to it posting in the game chat. And it's understood in tournaments that you tell your opponents when someone else is taking your turns (even if that person is your teammate).

I like that too! don't get me wrong, i am the staunchest advocate of no change at all and Timz suggestion sounds good to me but will we get the non-believers on-board?

i had edited my post above to be more reflective of my feeling and less pandering to a cheap line.. but you got in there first !

[Night Strike]

Ah, I see your edit now.

Honestly, I don't like having to include clauses like "Take people of your ignore list for the tournament" and this one if it becomes required. I'd do it if I had to, but I feel that it is something procedural that all tournaments should follow.

As an aside, I don't know if there have ever been problems of this nature in tournament games. As far as I can tell, the complaints are coming from those in public games. In my view, I feel that keeping the status quo is the best for tournaments, or at the very least let them run as they have been even with a new rule put in place for public games.

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

nobody has shown or given or even explained, a concrete example of how an advantage is gained in sequential play. as soon as this is explained, i have absolutely no problem with even the strictest of baby sitting bylaws...-0

if you look a few pages back i already answered to this question with an example of sequential abuse:

you and your partners start a doubles game. you each have 2000 points.
i have 3000 and join. but if i join with my other 3000 points partner i'll only get 15 points for the win. so i ask a cook with 1 point to join with me and then i have my regular partner to babysit for the cook. we beat you and get 30 points.
then repeat the process only this time my regular partner joins with the cook and i sit for the cook.
30 easy points for each of us (and 60 for the cook).
you may ask why not play normally and win both games it would mean the same number of points overall. well the reason is simple.
1. the element of surprise. if a cook joins after a high ranked player in a team game you'll assume he squeezed in by accident instead of the regular partner so you automatically underestimate the opponents and lose.
2. while me and my partner win 30 each you guys lose 60 each (that's good for weakening competition)

another example would be this:

skyT and his team start a sequential triples waiting for noobs to join.

johnny hates skyT and he asks 2 cooks to join that game with him then he proceeds in taking turns for all 3 thus gaining a big advantage.
or he simply lets 3 cooks join then asks them for permission to take their turns. he risks no points but has the chance to cripple skyT and his partners with 100 points

good point. if it was up to me, I would lock every account to 1 IP. if you try logging onto an account that is not set to that IP you are trying from, than it should not grant you access.

so if owenshooters friend has to clean up throw-up for 24 hours, than she will miss her turn instead of someone being able to take the turn for her. so if someone goes to a concert and doesnt play their moves before leaving and doesnt return back in time ( all this in a 24 hour time slot ) than he misses his turn. its called being responsible and not just using "excuses" so teams can use 1 player to make all the moves.

[Timminz]

good point. if it was up to me, I would lock every account to 1 IP. if you try logging onto an account that is not set to that IP you are trying from, than it should not grant you access.

Do you seriously think that nobody should be allowed to use a public-access computer, or check their turns from a friends' house, or that only one member of any particular household should be allowed to join CC?

I'm VERY happy to know that you will never be running things around here.

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

good point. if it was up to me, I would lock every account to 1 IP. if you try logging onto an account that is not set to that IP you are trying from, than it should not grant you access.

Do you seriously think that nobody should be allowed to use a public-access computer, or check their turns from a friends' house, or that only one member of any particular household should be allowed to join CC?

I'm VERY happy to know that you will never be running things around here.

are you using a public computer for 24 hours?

[Timminz]

good point. if it was up to me, I would lock every account to 1 IP. if you try logging onto an account that is not set to that IP you are trying from, than it should not grant you access.

Do you seriously think that nobody should be allowed to use a public-access computer, or check their turns from a friends' house, or that only one member of any particular household should be allowed to join CC?

I'm VERY happy to know that you will never be running things around here.

are you using a public computer for 24 hours?

No. Maybe I mis-understood what you were saying. By "lock every account to 1 IP", I assumed you meant that a player may not log in from any IP other than their 1 "registered" one, and no more than 1 account can ever access CC from the same IP. How am I off?

[Twill]

Rocket, that's fine, just don't ever ask someone in one of your games to sit for you

Owen, there can be a perceived advantage by anyone, for example we, as a site, perceived L Volo to have been not playing in an above board manner even though he may have honestly been unable to take his turns. This ruling would make it clear to us if he was or was not and thus mean that he wouldn't have gotten that warning.

By protecting against "perceived abuse" we are actually protecting the people DOING the sitting from being wrongfully accused...we're not protecting the accusers...So it's in your best interest (as someone who regularly sits) to build in those safeguards

Detlef, I see where your concern is, but again, it is to protect "you" that we are drawing this line. The mob is ficcle, and I'd hate to see anyone here wrongly accused of cheating. This rule is designed to stop cheating but at the same is building in added safeguards to stop false accusations which waste our time, smear your name and cause headaches for everyone. (this debate is a case in point of what we're trying to avoid in the future...there are lots of man-hours here that could be spent doing something more productive if a possibly false ruling had not been made in the first place)

Timminz, that's not entirely true. That's like saying you can steal anything you want from a store until someone tells you not to. Essentially it's the same - the item will leave the store one way or another, but in your version the owner has to ask for payment rather than the buyer asking for permission in the form of payment.

Stop cheaters, then allow the legitimate through...don't let everyone in then try to weed out the cheaters.

Owen, not sure how steroids have made CC more money...nor do I see how sitting abuse has done anything but lose us money.
We only make money as long as you guys (and everyone else) is happy and sticks around...cheating kinda ruins that.

How much more does this rule have to morph? What's still wrong with it?

And before you say "apply it only to freestyle" I'll say...why, you have a way to make it not apply to sequential if you so choose!

[Timminz]

Timminz, that's not entirely true. That's like saying you can steal anything you want from a store until someone tells you not to. Essentially it's the same - the item will leave the store one way or another, but in your version the owner has to ask for payment rather than the buyer asking for permission in the form of payment.

That analogy isn't quite right.

If the vast majority of store owners didn't expect payment, but a slim portion did, then yes, I think it would be fine to assume you can just take it, until they tell you otherwise. The shop owners who expected payment, would know that they are a very small minority, and would understand that 99% of the time store owners don't care if people pay, or not. Which would lead to them, pre-empting everyone who came into the store by letting them know that they expect to be paid.

Obviously, this is not the case. The vast majority of store owners expect to be paid for their goods, while the vast majority of CC'ers don't mind a bit of team-sitting, which is why your analogy is off for the situation here at CC.

Also, I'm not sure how I feel about you comparing team sitters to shoplifters.

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

good point. if it was up to me, I would lock every account to 1 IP. if you try logging onto an account that is not set to that IP you are trying from, than it should not grant you access.

Do you seriously think that nobody should be allowed to use a public-access computer, or check their turns from a friends' house, or that only one member of any particular household should be allowed to join CC?

I'm VERY happy to know that you will never be running things around here.

are you using a public computer for 24 hours?

No. Maybe I mis-understood what you were saying. By "lock every account to 1 IP", I assumed you meant that a player may not log in from any IP other than their 1 "registered" one, and no more than 1 account can ever access CC from the same IP. How am I off?

your off because you dont have to use that public computer to move. you have 24 hours to use the computer the account is assigned to.

[Timminz]

good point. if it was up to me, I would lock every account to 1 IP. if you try logging onto an account that is not set to that IP you are trying from, than it should not grant you access.

Do you seriously think that nobody should be allowed to use a public-access computer, or check their turns from a friends' house, or that only one member of any particular household should be allowed to join CC?

I'm VERY happy to know that you will never be running things around here.

are you using a public computer for 24 hours?

No. Maybe I mis-understood what you were saying. By "lock every account to 1 IP", I assumed you meant that a player may not log in from any IP other than their 1 "registered" one, and no more than 1 account can ever access CC from the same IP. How am I off?

your off because you dont have to use that public computer to move. you have 24 hours to use the computer the account is assigned to.

So, only one account per IP, and one IP per account? I can take my turns from home, and nowhere else?

[detlef]

Detlef, I see where your concern is, but again, it is to protect "you" that we are drawing this line. The mob is ficcle, and I'd hate to see anyone here wrongly accused of cheating. This rule is designed to stop cheating but at the same is building in added safeguards to stop false accusations which waste our time, smear your name and cause headaches for everyone. (this debate is a case in point of what we're trying to avoid in the future...there are lots of man-hours here that could be spent doing something more productive if a possibly false ruling had not been made in the first place)

Sorry, the bit you're referring to was actually not in the spirit of making things better. My apologies for that. I'm aware of your motivations and was simply making a poorly veiled attempt at CC's Chicken Little(s). I've actually stepped away from the ledge and am completely cool with the provision that you just need to ask. Should I find myself in games with the types of people who'll wet their pants over this sort of thing, I'll just avoid playing them in the future.