Sitter Joining Tournament Games

[Woodruff]

Concise description:

• Sitters should no longer be allowed to join their sittees into tournament games.

Specifics/Details:

• http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=239&t=141310
• Aside from the situation mentioned in the last point regarding Jobiwan's account, what really is the logic behind someone joining someone else up for a tournament game? I submit that it does not make sense to continue this practice, because if a person does not have time to join the tournament games, they certainly do not have the time to PLAY in those games. I recognize that some tournaments last a very long time, because I as a tournament organizer myself have one currently running that has been ongoing for some time now and I expect it to continue for quite some time still. In fact, all of my tournaments have been of the "very long-lasting template" in nature. A tournament organizer who is running a long-lasting tournament is far more likely to be willing to "give a break" to an individual who is going to be missing for a few days if that individual simply emails them in advance to let the tournament organizer know about it...that sort of goes with the nature of that style of a tournament.
• I submit that it makes far more sense for tournament organizers to simply use their discretion in allowing players to be absent for a day or two without penalty (and note such capability in their tournament-initiating post), and placing the requirement on the players themselves to notify the tournament organizer if they are going to be absent in that sort of a way, so that the consideration will be given in that way. From a logical standpoint, there isn't much sense in having the rules for sititng regarding tournament games to be different than the rules for sitting normal games.
• It seems patently unfair to me that someone is playing tournament games for someone else. It seems to me that this goes against the very idea of what a tournament is.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=239&t=141310
• Situations such as the one with Jobiwan's account will be avoided/punished as they should be.
• Consistency in enforcement of sitting accounts. Consistency in enforcement is something that has always been lacking at this site, and changing that outlook will aid players in understanding exactly what is acceptable and what is not.

[sonicsteve]

Let's not punish the innocent here just because one person has been incapable of looking after a friends account properly.

I play almost exclusively tournament and clan games, many of the tournaments I'm in last for several months. Some have a requirement that games are joined within 48 hours.

At the end of next month I will go on holiday for a week. Mrs Sonic will not allow me to take the laptop and if my sitters don't join my tournament games, I could lose games by default in tournaments which I have been competing in for many months.

My sitters won't sign me up for non-tournament games or watch my points plummet while they make small gains.

[blakebowling]

When I first read this post I agreed with it, but the more I think about it, the more I realize; this is one of those rules that shouldn't be needed. I've still got a neutral stance on it.

[Woodruff]

Let's not punish the innocent here just because one person has been incapable of looking after a friends account properly.
I play almost exclusively tournament and clan games, many of the tournaments I'm in last for several months. Some have a requirement that games are joined within 48 hours.
At the end of next month I will go on holiday for a week. Mrs Sonic will not allow me to take the laptop and if my sitters don't join my tournament games, I could lose games by default in tournaments which I have been competing in for many months.
My sitters won't sign me up for non-tournament games or watch my points plummet while they make small gains.

I understand completely. But my point is that MOST tournament organizers, and PARTICULARLY those that are running the very long-term tournaments, understand that those situations are going to come up. If this rule is in place, they will obviously be EVEN MORE understanding of that situation, because they will recognize that without the sitters, it is going to come up unavoidably. Honestly, I've always believed that it's patently unfair for a sitter to play tournament games for someone. It really defeats the whole point of what a tournament is.

I still can't think of a logical reason why tournament games should be treated any differently than non-tournament games.

[Night Strike]

TDs are currently in consultations with KA to find a solution to the issue, but completely banning sitters from joining tournament games almost certainly will not happen.

[eddie2]

i think this is very easy to solve.

if a player agrees to sit for someone then they are responsible for what happens during that time if they sign playyers up to games they must be made to play them games until the players is back

like in the situation with blitz if them games were not tourney games it would of been a out right ban. but he found a legal way to dump jobi's points. i to am not totally against sitters joining or playing for someone in tourneys or clan wars as long as that player is unavailible. to play but will be back to play during the said games.

[Chewie1]

I'm with sonicsteve on this one, over christmas I had serious laptop problems and as i had a long xmas break I had joined lots of tournaments and other games. Knowing full well that i had an extensive break and was looking to play cc a lot. Then my laptop went wrong and had to be sent away for repair. I managed to get a message to my clan mates to explain what help i needed.
I managed to take a few turns ar my local library during this enforced 3 week break. But when my laptop problems started I had just over 100 active games, and was a major...when I was back online i had just under 100 active games was still a major (go DBC) and the only games that my sitters had joined were tourney ones i had signed up for myself and had the invites sent through.
The fact that I had almost the entire clan sit for me over this period and not 1 of them abused the privilege proves that what happened in the jobwian/blitz situation was a one off and not everyone should be punished when Blitz only got a feeble warning.

[Woodruff]

TDs are currently in consultations with KA to find a solution to the issue, but completely banning sitters from joining tournament games almost certainly will not happen.

And still, no one is giving a reason why tournament games should be treated any differently than normal games. Night Strike, if you're going to make the above statement, can you please explain WHY?

[eddie2]

TDs are currently in consultations with KA to find a solution to the issue, but completely banning sitters from joining tournament games almost certainly will not happen.

And still, no one is giving a reason why tournament games should be treated any differently than normal games. Night Strike, if you're going to make the above statement, can you please explain WHY?

well like you have already stated woodruff there is a difference between normal games and tourney ones.

1)normal games if you have a holiday coming up soon you wont join it.

2)tourney games can last for ages and is built of loads of games so like some example you could join one and still be playing in it 1 year later. if you have a holiday or a emergency why should you be kicked after spending 1 year trying to win it.

[Woodruff]

TDs are currently in consultations with KA to find a solution to the issue, but completely banning sitters from joining tournament games almost certainly will not happen.

And still, no one is giving a reason why tournament games should be treated any differently than normal games. Night Strike, if you're going to make the above statement, can you please explain WHY?

well like you have already stated woodruff there is a difference between normal games and tourney ones.

1)normal games if you have a holiday coming up soon you wont join it.

Which applies to tournament games, as well...doesn't it?

2)tourney games can last for ages and is built of loads of games so like some example you could join one and still be playing in it 1 year later. if you have a holiday or a emergency why should you be kicked after spending 1 year trying to win it.

I agree that you shouldn't. Which is why tournament organizers would almost certainly be willing to grant those exceptions when they're made aware of them ahead of time. As I have said above, particularly the organizers of the long-term tournaments would be understanding of the situation, because there wouldn't be the fear of "you're holding up the tournament for a week" when the tournament itself is lasting more than a year anyway.

[Metsfanmax]

For the long-term tournaments this is fine, but what about the short-term ones where individual rounds only last a few days? If something comes up and someone has to ditch CC for like 48 hours, it's going to mess things up if they just disappear without a sitter.

[Woodruff]

For the long-term tournaments this is fine, but what about the short-term ones where individual rounds only last a few days? If something comes up and someone has to ditch CC for like 48 hours, it's going to mess things up if they just disappear without a sitter.

Yes, this is a valid point. I obviously do not want to hamstring tournaments nor tournament organizers (I am one).

I have tended to focus here on the long-term tournaments because those are the ones most likely to allow the situation of what happened with Jobiwan, whereas the short-term tournaments would be over before such a situation would have any kind of a significant impact.

That being said, MOST tournaments already have a "join within 48 hours" rule. Now I know your 48 hours selection was arbitrary and certainly someone could be missing for 3 days just as easily, but at least the 48-hours rule does mitigate the impact in those situations a great deal, from a slowing-down-the-tournament standpoint if the tournament organizer were willing to give stated grace periods when situations such as those come up.

There are some 24-hour rules for tournaments, but they're not a tremendous number. I don't have a great answer for them, I guess...as I said, your point is valid.

[eddie2]

TDs are currently in consultations with KA to find a solution to the issue, but completely banning sitters from joining tournament games almost certainly will not happen.

And still, no one is giving a reason why tournament games should be treated any differently than normal games. Night Strike, if you're going to make the above statement, can you please explain WHY?

well like you have already stated woodruff there is a difference between normal games and tourney ones.

1)normal games if you have a holiday coming up soon you wont join it.

Which applies to tournament games, as well...doesn't it?

2)tourney games can last for ages and is built of loads of games so like some example you could join one and still be playing in it 1 year later. if you have a holiday or a emergency why should you be kicked after spending 1 year trying to win it.

I agree that you shouldn't. Which is why tournament organizers would almost certainly be willing to grant those exceptions when they're made aware of them ahead of time. As I have said above, particularly the organizers of the long-term tournaments would be understanding of the situation, because there wouldn't be the fear of "you're holding up the tournament for a week" when the tournament itself is lasting more than a year anyway.

example
ok i am running a 8 player tourney.
player 1 is going on holiday for 2 weeks 1st jan
player 3 goes on 10th jan for 2 weeks
player 5 goes on 20th jan for 3 weeks.
then player 8 states he is away for 1 month

do you see what i am getting at things like during the summer holidays this could happen would a tourney organiser wait 2 months to carry his tourney on.

also like someone else has said why should all players suffer because of 1 player that has abused this rule majorly. all that is needed is something put in place stating that sitters must play all games for the person they are sitting for.

[Woodruff]

TDs are currently in consultations with KA to find a solution to the issue, but completely banning sitters from joining tournament games almost certainly will not happen.

And still, no one is giving a reason why tournament games should be treated any differently than normal games. Night Strike, if you're going to make the above statement, can you please explain WHY?

well like you have already stated woodruff there is a difference between normal games and tourney ones.

1)normal games if you have a holiday coming up soon you wont join it.

Which applies to tournament games, as well...doesn't it?

2)tourney games can last for ages and is built of loads of games so like some example you could join one and still be playing in it 1 year later. if you have a holiday or a emergency why should you be kicked after spending 1 year trying to win it.

I agree that you shouldn't. Which is why tournament organizers would almost certainly be willing to grant those exceptions when they're made aware of them ahead of time. As I have said above, particularly the organizers of the long-term tournaments would be understanding of the situation, because there wouldn't be the fear of "you're holding up the tournament for a week" when the tournament itself is lasting more than a year anyway.

example
ok i am running a 8 player tourney.
player 1 is going on holiday for 2 weeks 1st jan
player 3 goes on 10th jan for 2 weeks
player 5 goes on 20th jan for 3 weeks.
then player 8 states he is away for 1 month

An 8-player tournament is not likely to be a long-term tournament, is it?

also like someone else has said why should all players suffer because of 1 player that has abused this rule majorly. all that is needed is something put in place stating that sitters must play all games for the person they are sitting for.

If you must know the truth, I don't believe that implementing this would cause ANYONE to "suffer". It would delay tournaments from getting to their completion, though for most people other than the tournament organizers themselves, that's really not a big deal.

[Tupence]

My tournaments go on long enough as it is. If, as eddie2 said, at peak holiday times we were having to wait around for various people, it would just get ridiculous.

[Rodion]

What about transforming sitters that join tournament games in "guarantors"? The act of joining a tournament game while sitting should be seen as a guarantee that the person who joined the game will play it if the actual owner can't. And if he fails to guarantee that, he commited point dumping (or didn't "commit", but is legally responsible anyway).

[HighlanderAttack]

I did not spend much time on this one--but I do not think sitters need to join tourney games for the person the are sitting for. The organizer can either wait for the player to come back or replace that player. If a player is not going to play any of his tourney game and needs a sitter to play what is the use in playing the tourney? I understand things come up. I know that I would be willing to wait for a player to come back versus that player having his/her sitter join and play for them.

[Woodruff]

What about transforming sitters that join tournament games in "guarantors"? The act of joining a tournament game while sitting should be seen as a guarantee that the person who joined the game will play it if the actual owner can't. And if he fails to guarantee that, he commited point dumping (or didn't "commit", but is legally responsible anyway).

A good idea...but tracking it may be a big problem. I don't know the mechanics behind what the multi-hunters do, but something along those lines would have to be in place to "show who joined the game" and have it logged somehow.

However, couldn't that same logic be given for non-tournament games? Why treat them differently?

[Rodion]

Non-tournament games can't be joined.

The reason why tournament games can be joined is not to endanger the flow of the tournament and also not to eliminate someone because he had a rl issue that kept him from logging (as most tournaments eliminate you if you don't joim in 24/48 hours). Those same reasons do not carry over to non-tournament games, as they are not part of a recognized organizational procedure.

[Woodruff]

Non-tournament games can't be joined.

Sure they can...a sitter can accept an invitation for their sittee in a non-tournament game.

[Rodion]

Non-tournament games can't be joined.

Sure they can...a sitter can accept an invitation for their sittee in a non-tournament game.

Well, if they do it they will be warned. If they persist on such practices, they will (hopefully) suffer stricter consequences.

[mcshanester29]

I think that it is fine for a sitter to play as real life stuff comes up. I know I have had to work out of town for a few days unexpectedly and didn't have internet access and it was good to have a couple people taking my turns for me so I wouldn't miss turns and still would be able to participate in the tourneys I had signed up for. As a tourney organizer as well, it is nice to not have the tournament bog down in the middle of a tourney waiting for one person who could be gone for a week.

[Woodruff]

Non-tournament games can't be joined.

Sure they can...a sitter can accept an invitation for their sittee in a non-tournament game.

Well, if they do it they will be warned. If they persist on such practices, they will (hopefully) suffer stricter consequences.

Which is precisely my point.

[eddie2]

Non-tournament games can't be joined.

Sure they can...a sitter can accept an invitation for their sittee in a non-tournament game.

that is wrong you are not allowed to do that. it is a sitting abuse you are only allowed to accept invatations for clan war or tourney games.

[blakebowling]

Non-tournament games can't be joined.

Sure they can...a sitter can accept an invitation for their sittee in a non-tournament game.

that is wrong you are not allowed to do that. it is a sitting abuse you are only allowed to accept invatations for clan war or tourney games.

What woodruff is saying is that there is no mechanism on the site that stops a sitter from doing that, or any other thing. It IS against the rules, but the only way they can be enforced is after the fact.