Conquer Club

Posted: **Wed Jan 25, 2017 3:39 pm**

Chuuuuuck from your clan had reported chariot of fire for doing exact the same thing in past and CoF was banned for 1 month after he report. Therefore, Chuuuuuck could educate your clan about the rule and its meaning, if you didn't have a clue about past cases.

Posted: **Wed Jan 25, 2017 3:51 pm**

Paul,
#1 No I haven't made any interpretation of the site rules in this case. In the past I asked the appropriate people to clarify what I needed to know so that my "interpretation" would be no different than that of the site admin who review such cases. The only "ruling" I personally made in this case was regarding your appeal to Lindax's decision regarding CL8. That wasn't the sitting abuse case ruling, but one regarding how the event handled the ruling.

Josko filed a report directly with Lindax / KA, which was forwarded by Lindax to me & KA (because I'm the correspondant to KA in disciplinary matters). The report information was reviewed by KA & site rules / punishments went over. Part of that review as you know was that I contacted nib & FF and forwarded that info to KA to also be considered as part of the case. That was the defense provided by nib & FF. You were well aware of that. I have no idea where I said that it was my verdict. In fact reading through it, it says over and over "following actions from a site / clan perspective", and "we's" not "me" or "I". I reference KA's ruling and guidance multiple times throughout it.

Yes, that ruling was sent to Lindax and he made a determination for the event. Thats what he's supposed to do. That "warning" "I" felt needed to be imposed (aka, what KA said for first infractions), was for their personal accounts. You seem to not understand that the original case is vs nibotha, and freefalling123 and several others and not you or TOP. (although they were all TOP members). The warning for TOP was due to what KA deemed as excessive sitting practices, operating under the assumption it was everyones first offense. (which we learned later, was not the case which came out when josko appealed the initial warning).

#2 sure. We can talk ourselves in circles again and again if you like. But I understand thats your view. Noted.

#3 Where did I admit it was hard to find? Seriously, I'd like to know. Heres my PM to you when you asked in case you forgot:

IcePack wrote:For years it was posted in the FAQ area. I think that page is now defunct or getting rebuilt etc.

But you can still find it in a variety of places.
Here in the top of C&A:
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 5#p1450047

As well as past C&A cases like the one Josko quotes & these:
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... g#p3914252

Another one:
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... g#p3691898

Thanks
IcePack

PaulatPeace wrote:Jason,

Can you tell me where I may find the "Site Sitting Rules" you have referred to?

I have looked in the C&A section. I have looked in the RULES section at the top right of this page. I cannot find them. I do not believe I have ever seen them posted anywhere.

Paul

Nowhere did I say it was hard to find. I said for years it was in specific areas, and then provided you links to three different areas. Literally took a quick search to find them. Not that difficult. Again you totally misunderstand that it was SITE RULES that were violated, not CLAN rules. We didn't even get into clan rules because it was so very clear that site rules had been violated. So you needed to know exactly 0% of clan rules in order to avoid the verdict because it was 100% site rules that were not being followed. Now whether or not there was intent I'm not going to argue bcuz I dont know what was going through their head other than what they said in their defense (which in part admitted to violating the site rules by leaving the turn for someone else). But there clearly was guilt, otherwise the admin wouldn't have imposed the ban. (Important to note, I do not possess the power to impliment website bans, nor do I have the authority even as a team leader to impose them as far as I know) so very clearly KA was heavily involved and its not just me acting behind the scenes "saying" im discussing with KA. He wouldn't do so unless he reviewed the case and felt it was justified after he received the info and defense.

You can continue to beat the personal bias drum all you like, but that frankly just isn't the case. However I know you're not going to change your mind, so I am not going to waste my time trying to change it.

PaulatPeace wrote:
IcePack wrote:#1 - it's not "my" interpretation. The world doesn't revolve around my perspective or interpretation of site rules. But I didn't interpret anything. I didn't rule on the sitting case as has already been stated. I don't have the tools to verify anything. Admins rule on sitting abuse cases and consult me if there's any question about the clan sitting rules (as they focus primarily on site rules not clans). You clearly have interpreted the rules...and have your own personal bias! You DID make a ruling on the sitting case! Kindly do not insult my intelligence or that of everyone else who knows you did! There was Never a C&A report filed concerning this case. You have only told me you referred this to KA. (By the way KA has told us he was letting the Clan Department handle this.) TOP, FreeFalling123 & nibotha were never given an opportunity to defend ourselves to KA whatsoever! Additionally, you told me yourself that you had reached a "Verdict" & that you would be referring your information to Lindax, who then ultimately made his own personal judgements in his interpretation of the rules, even though you felt only a Warning needed to be imposed! The point here is You, Lindax and possibly KA ALL made decisions based on your interpretation of rules that are vague and unclear! Even you admitted "the claims made were inconclusive", "intent here overall is hard to prove" & " likely was not to intentionally circumvent the site or clan sitting rules." Additionally, you commented "Ultimately we will consider this a "educational" experience and ultimately just warn". If it had been left at that, we could have lived with a warning, even though we felt it was unjustified. But it has now been taken much farther than that....and it never should have been!

#2 - again the rules aren't currently being updated. i explained / clarified that Keefie misspoke. There's a proposal being considered to look into an update that's been on my radar for 6-12 months or so. But there's no official rule change occurring ATM. If your CDF rep has suggestions on how to clarify it, happy to consider those there if we do look at an update in the future. I am sorry Keith misspoke! But there clearly has been grave concern that the "Rules on Sitting" need to be clarified and changed! That is my point! The needed to have been clarified and changed...but they weren't! Based on the current rules...we have broken none of them!

#3 - I don't control when the site updates their rule books or don't. We have cases that have come up in the past that provided those clarifications. As a site member (not clans) everyone has had to follow the same rules for years. It's been well discussed and very well known in general what's allowed and what's not. As long time members of the site I'm surprised if someone is totally oblivious to the site sitting rules, but even so that's what the "warning & education" is for on first time offenses. You admitted to me yourself that the "Site" sitting rules were not easy to find when I requested from you where they were! Even so...the site rules and the Clan rules regarding sitting have NOT been violated as they are currently written. You are citing previous precedents which you feel may have some impact on the current rules. This is not the same as the rule itself, which is what should be referred to. Things may have been "well discussed and very well known in general" by many of you who have been examining details of clan issues for a long time now. But we did not know these things, and it is unreasonable to expect or assume we would know them! FreeFalling 123 did not commit an infraction this time. He did indeed learn from the past......and did violate any sitting rule as currently written. nibotha did not violate any current rule either! There is no guilt or intention of wrong doing here! From everything you are saying....we were supposed to read the minds of those individuals who will someday rewrite the sitting rules for more clarification!

Second time offenses, the person should already know better and therefore no longer come with a warning. Again, that's a site rule, not clan rule. It's an important distinction. No violation of the current rules was made!!!!! Therefore, no second offense was committed! That my dear fellow is THE important distinction!!!

If you have suggestions for the site on how they should update site rules (as opposed to clan rules) then there's a suggestions section of the forum for that.

The only suggestion I have now....is that you examine you conscience thoroughly. You and Lindax are guilty of allowing your personal bias to warp your judgement! Rational examination of the issue would tell you this!

Paul

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:04 am**

@everyone. Can we stop discussing the TOP/S&M case and really talk about Clan Sitting Rules ? ( and site )

Talking back about the PaulatPeace example

So I would like to begin this discussion by asking this question: If Player A (an experienced player) is waiting on clarification from his teammates on how to best make his next move and has to take off to work. Player A is now at work & 2 - 3 hrs pass. Player A is not able to take off from work to play his turn and the time runs down to 32 minutes before his turn expires. Player B, sees his clanmate is in danger of missing his turn and is clearly under the 2 hrs needed to qualify for emergency sitting. Player B takes Player A's turn and announces it in chat. Where is the violation of the rules, & what tactical advantage has been gained?

josko, forget we speak about nibotha and Freefalling. For the sake of the discussion, let's even assume it's the other way around, I am gonna miss my turn ( me general, 15k + games) and another player of my clan, let's say a major, with less game played than me (we have lot of them in LHDD) is sitting me.

This is just a theoretical question, but it happened to me, and it happened to other in my clan I know that.
I am in general connected a lot on CC ( way too much for my on good but not the topic

). And I know I can wait to take my turns.
I take the vast majority of my turn myself, of course, but the example described allow did happen to me. I played my games during the day, I am waiting in one game for some reply/comment, then something totally unexpected happened to me, and I am going to miss my turn. Then someone else played my turn.

Are we breaking clan sitting rule ?
Are we breaking site sitting rule ?

In my humble opinion, we are not breaking any rule, something happened that prevent me to take my turn myself and then it was emergency sitting.

Ok, need to talk little bit about the TOP case because I am afraid you are going to answer to me that I am breaking clan rule just because I am describing same thing that PaulatPeace.
In TOP case, as far as I understood it, they did that but way too often, so that it wasn't emergency case ( emergency shouldn't happen 3 times a day or several time a week for one player ( random number, not saying that was those numbers in your clan Paul ) ). In TOP, (assuming it was UNintentional), they knew that someone gonna cover, so they didn't care if they weren't 100% sure to be back to take their turns, which resulted in a lot of "emergency" sitting.
I am describing the same case, but assuming it is really rarethat it happens, then I believe we aren't breaking any rule, even if I ( me being the one needing emergency sitting) played turns less than 24h before and after my sitting.

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2017 5:06 am**

Donelladan wrote:In TOP case, as far as I understood it, they did that but way too often, so that it wasn't emergency case ( emergency shouldn't happen 3 times a day or several time a week for one player ( random number, not saying that was those numbers in your clan Paul ) ). In TOP, (assuming it was UNintentional), they knew that someone gonna cover, so they didn't care if they weren't 100% sure to be back to take their turns, which resulted in a lot of "emergency" sitting.
I am describing the same case, but assuming it is really rarethat it happens, then I believe we aren't breaking any rule, even if I ( me being the one needing emergency sitting) played turns less than 24h before and after my sitting.

You re totally right here, if it happens once in a while, and you underlined that something TOTALLY UNEXPECTED happened, then it would not be breaking of site rules. But, the same is with other site rules, sitting rules are not special here. For example, recently xroads was punished because he missed a lot of turns on 31 December. I am sure if he missed only one turn then he would not be punished because one turn missed out of 300 games he played is not intentional. In further past, Bliutzaholic was punished because he joined a lot of turns for Jobiwan by sitting for him and later took advantage of his turns in games together. I am sure if Blitzaholic joined only 1 game for Jobiwan, then it would not be considered as abuse. GeneralLeeGettinhead was banned from the site because he was taking advantage of many new recruits taking easy points from them. I am sure if he played only versus 1 new recruit then he would not be punished.

As for the TOPvS&M case, it happened 5 "emergency" sittings in round 1, which is by the way strategically the most important round (especially in 2 of 5 sitting cases where it happened with unlimited fort on huge maps in round 1). Then, in rounds 2-4 TOP had 0 sittings in total after the case versus them was opened. So what does that tell about TOP? coincidentally, they are so "busy" in round 1 that 5 "emergency" sitting cases happened and then suddenly they are not so "busy" anymore so no single sitting case happened in rounds 2-4? Or maybe sittings happened in round 1 were not so "emergency" but rather leaving turns intentionally for better player to play? This is not isolated case, for example TOP also had 3 sittings FreeFalling for jdw35 in game versus your clan [game]16942551[/game] including sitting in opening turn (again coincidence to have "emergency" in opening turn?) when in all 3 cases jdw35 normally played his turns earlier that day in other games. There are probably other cases which I am not aware of but king achilles found them by his IP check because in the verdict it says that TOP clan did EXCESSIVE sitting abuse.

Also I would like to point out, I did not report TOP immediately. I first warned FreeFalling123 in Hive chat that what they are doing is borderline of breaking rules, after he sat there for jdw35 in opening turn and after macken sat for Big_john in opening turn in world 2.1 (both games unlimited fort). So I first gave them friendly warning hoping they will stop. However, AFTER the friendly warning it happened sitting for nibotha who played 16 other turns by himself just 2.30 hours before FF123 sat for him and then we filed report, but since it was only one case of sitting in Usa 2.1 game, even then we did not ask for replay. However, then AFTER the report was filled it happened second sitting FF123 or jaybrake (who played other turn earlier that day) in Usa 2.1 game and it was already 3 of 4 opening turns in Usa 2.1 game played by FF123 and therefore we asked for replay because huge strategical advantage was already taken. So we were tolerating initial sittings by TOP clan, warned them that they might be breaking rules, and after warning them they continued to do so, then we reported them and after the report they still continued to do so so we asked for the replay but only as a final countermeasure because our two warnings undertaken earlier obviously did not work.

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2017 5:26 am**

josko.ri wrote:Chuuuuuck from your clan had reported chariot of fire for doing exact the same thing in past and CoF was banned for 1 month after he report. Therefore, Chuuuuuck could educate your clan about the rule and its meaning, if you didn't have a clue about past cases.

This is link where Chuuuuuck from TOP clan reported Chariot of Fire for breaking account sitting rules, so obviously he was very well aware of account sitting rules and precedent rulings. If others from TOP didn't know about rules and previous cases, he could/should teach you what are rules about.
viewtopic.php?f=239&t=174462

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2017 5:51 am**

Thanks for your answer josko ! I hope a more official answer is coming as well just to be sure, and I'll make sure in my clan that sitting stay the exception !

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:37 am**

Sigh, u are taking all the fun out of this site boys

not much to say ... more than if i sit i allways announce it, and i wait as low as able and if its for extended period of time i pm the mods, and the opponents clan leaders that i do and explain why. never had any trouble with it...

Be honest, be safe and have fun!

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:42 am**

I think it's ok if the rules don't clarify the timing exactly as it may depend on a case by case basis.

For example, here is how I think of the rules:
- I have 22 hours on the clock and don't think or am not sure that I can be online again in the next 22 hours. I should take the turn now even if I am not able to discuss the turn with my partners. If I let the clock run down for people to chime in and rely on my sitter to cover for me, then I think I'm breaking the rules.
- I have 2 hours on the clock and am happily taking turns in my other games. I know I'll be around my PC for another hour so I leave this game for later. In the meantime my internet / power go out / computer breaks down / I have an RL emergency appear. Someone notices my clock is low and PMs my sitters, one of them covers the turn. I think this is according to the rules even if I was just active an hour ago.

Now in the first case even if I break the rules, it's hard for anyone to be suspicious and report me, and hard to prove without me admitting. The second case looks very suspicious and would likely get reported if someone notices, but I believe after review it would be found within the rules.

Basically if you are not reasonably sure you can take your turn later, you take it now even without input from your team.

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:00 am**

Kexor wrote:I think it's ok if the rules don't clarify the timing exactly as it may depend on a case by case basis.

For example, here is how I think of the rules:
- I have 22 hours on the clock and don't think or am not sure that I can be online again in the next 22 hours. I should take the turn now even if I am not able to discuss the turn with my partners. If I let the clock run down for people to chime in and rely on my sitter to cover for me, then I think I'm breaking the rules.
- I have 2 hours on the clock and am happily taking turns in my other games. I know I'll be around my PC for another hour so I leave this game for later. In the meantime my internet / power go out / computer breaks down / I have an RL emergency appear. Someone notices my clock is low and PMs my sitters, one of them covers the turn. I think this is according to the rules even if I was just active an hour ago.

Now in the first case even if I break the rules, it's hard for anyone to be suspicious and report me, and hard to prove without me admitting. The second case looks very suspicious and would likely get reported if someone notices, but I believe after review it would be found within the rules.

Basically if you are not reasonably sure you can take your turn later, you take it now even without input from your team.

You are right.

For example, in World 21 game vs TOP. we had player ender_w99 who came only once online one day and the turn came to him to play exactly at that time when he was online. Therefore, he played his turn with 23.20 hours left on timer, without discussing the turn with teammates. In team chat he explained it was his only available time that day to play the turn. This is completely clear example how turns should be played within rules. Playing turn by player who is on the turn himself has more priority over discussing turn strategy.

Posted: **Sat Jan 28, 2017 2:47 am**

I will endeavor one more time to make sense of this to anyone who is interested. As I told IcePack before, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink! For those of you who refuse to see the truth....there are none so blind as those who will not see!

I would like to thank Dolelladan for trying to remind everyone why this thread was started. It was not to debate the TOP/S&M case....but to discuss the Clan Sitting Rules and the Site Rules as they may affect clans. I attempted to describe an example that could be used to start a general discussion. Josko then jumped in an made the discussion about a specific case he was involved in with TOP. That was not what this thread was intended for...but it has now evolved into just that.

I would also like to apologize to Lord Arioch for "taking all the fun out of this site". I am sorry this is the case for you and suggest that you not read this thread if it is robbing you of your joy. Sincerely!

I will no longer address Josko's comments. His agenda is clear and I am sure it is not his fault he cannot see past the nose on his own face! There are those that have suggested to me that S&M is so afraid of losing to us that they are going to any extreme they can to try to take us down....even asking that games we were winning be remade and requesting one of our most versatile players be banned for a month. I did not want to believe this....then just last night xroads asks IcePack & Lindax to look into all TOPs past CL 8 games to possibly have them remade due to what he referred to as "Rumors" he had heard. Josko clearly is desperate to find a way to beat us...even if it means accusing us of something that did not happen. I am sorry Josko's orientation on clan sitting practice is based on his own personal experience of violating the sitting rules multiple times....but just because you did it Josko, that doesn't mean we did!

I will address some of the comments IcePack has made here. I do see IcePack as an articulate and knowledgeable Clan Director and also someone who tries to maintain his composure. But I also see him as someone who misinterprets and confuses issues. I have not decided whether these are honest mistakes or not.....but I do see a mentality among most of the Clan Department members to back each other up regardless of the truth and allow abuse of power to occur for the sake of convenience.

So I will ask IcePack about a few statements he has made:

1) "As you know, josko has levied accusations of sitting abuse. While the number of games / cases were many, and the general scope of the claims fairly involved, working with the admin (KA) who has access to the login times, IP's, who took what turns etc. In general, the claims made were inconclusive."

2) "Most of the games etc that were reviewed that josko posted were inconclusive, other than the one game that was remade. Several items of concern that josko brought up were not verified / not accurate."

3) "Ultimately we will consider this a "educational" experience and ultimately just warn / note"

4) "Forfeits and remakes etc generally are last resorts."

So I would like to understand a few things here.

- If "In general the claims made were inconclusive." & "Several items of concern that josko brought up were not verified / not accurate."...then then how could it have been determined by KA, you or Lindax that "excessive amount of sitting within the clan in general"? If most of the claims against TOP were inconclusive inaccurate & unverified....then why was TOP issued a "Warning"? Apparently according to your own words....there was insufficient evidence!

- If the Clan Department felt that "Ultimately we will consider this a "educational" experience and ultimately just warn / note" & "Forfeits and remakes etc generally are last resorts."....then why did the Clan Department feel it necessary to have a game remade? Clearly anyone analyzing the game from the beginning realized that 1 solitary move in a trench game, that was made significantly into the game, with no major consequence to either team ....could not possibly have any affect whatsoever on the final outcome! It makes no justifiable sense!

Now regarding the specific comments you have made here:

IcePack wrote:Paul,
#1 No I haven't made any interpretation of the site rules in this case. In the past I asked the appropriate people to clarify what I needed to know so that my "interpretation" would be no different than that of the site admin who review such cases. The only "ruling" I personally made in this case was regarding your appeal to Lindax's decision regarding CL8. That wasn't the sitting abuse case ruling, but one regarding how the event handled the ruling.

So...it seems from the prior statements you made, that you as Head Clan Director and the one who ultimately makes decisions on Appeals... although you felt that "Ultimately we will consider this a "educational" experience and ultimately just warn / note" & "Forfeits and remakes etc generally are last resorts."... at the same time you felt it appropriate to allow Lindax to "Punish" us by remaking a game we were winning! This is what you did in the appeal of Lindax's decision. You chose to let Lindax do something that you yourself did not deem appropriate ...although you have reversed Lindax's decisons in the past! Why??? Where is your consistency? Isn't it your job to make sure things are fair and equitable in these tournaments? Remaking a game in this instance, by your own words wasn't appropriate or justified! So why did you allow it IcePack.....WHY?

Josko filed a report directly with Lindax / KA, which was forwarded by Lindax to me & KA (because I'm the correspondant to KA in disciplinary matters). The report information was reviewed by KA & site rules / punishments went over. Part of that review as you know was that I contacted nib & FF and forwarded that info to KA to also be considered as part of the case. That was the defense provided by nib & FF. You were well aware of that. I have no idea where I said that it was my verdict. In fact reading through it, it says over and over "following actions from a site / clan perspective", and "we's" not "me" or "I". I reference KA's ruling and guidance multiple times throughout it.

So, you are saying that you made the "Verdict" regarding the appeal of the remaking of the game.....but the other verdicts were made by KA and then Lindax? Correct? Ok... so your "Verdict" was simply to uphold Lindax's "Verdict" to remake the game we were winning! I think I have it now!

Let me ask you this then, when you asked nibotha and FreeFalling for their explanations of what happened...did I not provide you this detailed response from both of them as their Clan Leader and the one designated to respond to Josko's accusations?:

"Greetings Jason,

Thank you for your inquiry into this matter. I will provide you with the facts regarding the sitting incident you asked about since I have been in contact with both Free & nibotha about it.

This is the entry from the game chat from FreeFalling123 in USA 2.1:[/b][/color]
2017-01-15 02:17:18 - nibotha: FF for nibs... time was getting low

This is the entry from the same game showing when the previous turn ended:
2017-01-14 02:48:52 - davekettering ended the turn

As you can see, nibotha had less than 32 minutes to take his turn when Freefalling took it in an emergency sitting situation...which he had every right to do.

I also will provide you with additional information from my cell phone records. This is a text to me on 1/15/17 at 1:04 AM CC time sent to me from nibotha at his place of work from his cell phone:
I am about to start work so won't have time to check in on that game again before my turn (FYI)
nibotha is at work and clearly states he will be unable to check in on the game.

My understanding is that nibotha took several turns from home and then had to rush to work. Discussion was still ongoing in that game as to the best move to make & he did not have time to take the turn. The time went way below 2 hrs and Free took the turn for nibotha as permitted.

I have copied this information fro the Official Clan Sitting Rules and highlited parts which I believe apply to us:

Basic Rules

1. The announcing in chat, of the name of the person who has covered a turn will now be mandatory.

2. You may appoint an account sitter If you need to be away from the site. Your sitter can take your turns whenever it is convenient for them, your sitter can add to chat whilst covering your account. You may have more than one sitter if you require it. Your sitter should announce in chat that you are away and give an approximate time frame for your return. If you need an account sitter then you should not take turns yourself.

3. Emergency cover may be given if the person is in danger of missing a turn. A person will be in danger of missing a turn when:

a, There is less than 2 hours on the clock
b, When their turn expires at a time when they are not usually online. For example It is in the middle of the night their time, or if they do not take turns during work hours.

Guidance
Emergency cover is for when you have not directly been asked to sit by the person when there is less than 2 hours on the clock or when their turn expires at a time when they are usually not online.
For example. You may cover all turns that will expire in the middle of the night their time, until they would usually be online in the morning. Or if they do not take turns during work hours, you may cover all turns that would expire before they got home.
This rule will not cover all circumstances. We will look at every issue with common sense. If you have a legitimate reason for breaking the 2 hour rule and you post to say you have done so, you will not get into any trouble. However if you break the two hour rule, or take a turn at less than two hours you must be certain that the person will miss. The person in question must not have been online recently taking their own turns. If you regularly cover turns in an unnecessary time frame, and the person subsequently comes online in that time frame, you will be guilty of account sharing

If you have any further questions, please contact me regarding them.

Thank you,

Paul

I had been designated as the spokesperson for both nibotha & FreeFalling, but this was not good enough for you and you continued to ask the for their "personal" accounts of what happened...even though you had been provided an answer which they sanctioned. So as a supplement to the original answer provided to you both Free & nibotha answered your questions again. Tell me IcePack, did either Nibotha or Free ever say they deliberately cheated? No! Didn't they say they were "deliberately letting the clock run down"? No! Did nibotha ever say his intention all along was to just let FreeFalling take his turn for him? No! Did FreeFalling ever say the plan and intention all along was for him to take nibotha's turn? No! Did they deny any wrongdoing? Yes!

You say the personal statements nibotha & FreeFalling provided WERE their defense....but did you include the statement above that was initially provided on their behalf and sanctioned by them? Were they ever given a chance to answer specific charges by KA. Indeed.........was their ever even an official C&A report filed in which they could present their case? NO is the answer to all these questions!

Yes, that ruling was sent to Lindax and he made a determination for the event. Thats what he's supposed to do. That "warning" "I" felt needed to be imposed (aka, what KA said for first infractions), was for their personal accounts. You seem to not understand that the original case is vs nibotha, and freefalling123 and several others and not you or TOP. (although they were all TOP members). The warning for TOP was due to what KA deemed as excessive sitting practices, operating under the assumption it was everyones first offense. (which we learned later, was not the case which came out when josko appealed the initial warning).

So help me understand this: About this ruling by KA, that you said on behalf of the entire Clan Department Team "Ultimately we will consider this a "educational" experience and ultimately just warn / note", & "Forfeits and remakes etc generally are last resorts."....but you then allowed Lindax to remake a game TOP was winning against S&M, even though it went against everything you had said previously about the issue? And when TOP appealed Lindax's decision to remake the game....you again went against what you originally said and upheld his decision? You knew this wasn't right and you have overturned Lindax's decisions before.....but not here in the CL 8 where we are winning the event!

I do understand that the original case is vs nibotha, and freefalling123! What you don't seem to understand is that it is so much more than that! Do you really think remaking a game we were winning against S&M would not affect our entire clan? Not only has one of our best and most versatile players been banned from playing in CL 8 games for a month....but he can't even chat with his teammates in the games he is still in, and wasn't allowed to play in the remade game he was in originally. Our motto "Omegas Fight As One" is not just some flowery saying.....it is the heart and blood life of our clan members! When you do this kind of crap to one of us....you do it to ALL of us!

And the warning TOP received due to what KA deemed as "excessive sitting practices" ....is this the same warning about which you said "In general, the claims made were inconclusive." & "Several items of concern that josko brought up were not verified / not accurate."?

#2 sure. We can talk ourselves in circles again and again if you like. But I understand thats your view. Noted.

#3 Where did I admit it was hard to find? Seriously, I'd like to know.

Here I will apologize to you IcePack for the use of the words "hard to find". For a Head Clan Director who deals with this stuff all the time it may have been easy to recall/find. For me it was not! In the below message to me you say "For years it was posted in the FAQ area. I think that page is now defunct or getting rebuilt etc.". I guess the fact it is no longer there and is now defunct doesn't make it more difficult to find. It certainly wasn't located in the RULES section at the top right of our home page, where you'd think it would be. You cite the C& A section where I did look. After scrolling down 3/4 of the page, you find a small passage in sitting which is I suppose the entire Site Sitting Rules! you then refer me to 2 cases which occurred years ago and I knew nothing about....yet was supposed to know existed and where they were located. I guess they were not "hard to find" for you. For me they were!

Heres my PM to you when you asked in case you forgot:

IcePack wrote: For years it was posted in the FAQ area. I think that page is now defunct or getting rebuilt etc.

But you can still find it in a variety of places.
Here in the top of C&A:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=56445#p1450047

As well as past C&A cases like the one Josko quotes & these:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=179256&p=3914182&hilit=account+sitting#p3914252

Another one:
viewtopic.php?f=239&t=169089&p=3691041&hilit=account+sitting#p3691898

Thanks
IcePack

PaulatPeace wrote:Jason,

Can you tell me where I may find the "Site Sitting Rules" you have referred to?

I have looked in the C&A section. I have looked in the RULES section at the top right of this page. I cannot find them. I do not believe I have ever seen them posted anywhere.

Paul

Nowhere did I say it was hard to find. I said for years it was in specific areas, and then provided you links to three different areas. Literally took a quick search to find them. Not that difficult. Again you totally misunderstand that it was SITE RULES that were violated, not CLAN rules. We didn't even get into clan rules because it was so very clear that site rules had been violated. So you needed to know exactly 0% of clan rules in order to avoid the verdict because it was 100% site rules that were not being followed. Now whether or not there was intent I'm not going to argue bcuz I dont know what was going through their head other than what they said in their defense (which in part admitted to violating the site rules by leaving the turn for someone else). But there clearly was guilt, otherwise the admin wouldn't have imposed the ban. (Important to note, I do not possess the power to impliment website bans, nor do I have the authority even as a team leader to impose them as far as I know) so very clearly KA was heavily involved and its not just me acting behind the scenes "saying" im discussing with KA. He wouldn't do so unless he reviewed the case and felt it was justified after he received the info and defense.

Now this is a really interesting statement from you Mr Head Clan Director! So now "it was SITE RULES that were violated, not CLAN rules." This is a tournament run by the CLAN Department. The TO is a member of the CLAN Department Team. You are the Head CLAN Director. This is a CLAN forum thread. We have been talking all this time about sitting violations that are affecting CLANS competing in the CLAN run tournament.................but this not about violating Clan Rules. The Clan Department thought it necessary to provide additional clarification on Sitting issues in the form of "The Clan Sitting Rules".... but this is not about Clan Rules at all!

You are not speaking the truth IcePack when you said in their defense nibotha & FreeFalling "admitted to violating the site rules by leaving the turn for someone else". This is completely false and you know it. I have copies of their statements as you do. Nowhere do either of them say this!!! In fact, did FreeFalling not say "to get assumptions saying we are deliberately letting the clock run down for our best players is rough"? What WAS said is that discussion was still ongoing about nibotha's best moves and he had to leave his turn and go to work. Then with 32 minutes left on his turn a clanmate took the turn for him in an Emergency Sitting situation. He did not say he intended to leave it for someone else to take. You inferred this! You said yourself "Now whether or not there was intent I'm not going to argue bcuz I dont know what was going through their head". No you don't! You don't know if nibotha intended to try to take his turn later at work. You don't know if something came up that caused him to be unable to take it. You have no idea. You just inferred this from what Josko told you! There is no proof of this allegation! there is only speculation & conjecture! Shame on you!

You can continue to beat the personal bias drum all you like, but that frankly just isn't the case. However I know you're not going to change your mind, so I am not going to waste my time trying to change it.
Please don't!!! You do clearly have a bias here and it is obvious to many! You have said things that are untrue! You have said "Ultimately we will consider this a "educational" experience and ultimately just warn / note" & "Forfeits and remakes etc generally are last resorts." .... but then allowed a member of you Clan Department Team to remake a game TOP was winning! Please don't try to tell me you have no personal bias!

PaulatPeace wrote:
IcePack wrote:#1 - it's not "my" interpretation. The world doesn't revolve around my perspective or interpretation of site rules. But I didn't interpret anything. I didn't rule on the sitting case as has already been stated. I don't have the tools to verify anything. Admins rule on sitting abuse cases and consult me if there's any question about the clan sitting rules (as they focus primarily on site rules not clans). You clearly have interpreted the rules...and have your own personal bias! You DID make a ruling on the sitting case! Kindly do not insult my intelligence or that of everyone else who knows you did! There was Never a C&A report filed concerning this case. You have only told me you referred this to KA. (By the way KA has told us he was letting the Clan Department handle this.) TOP, FreeFalling123 & nibotha were never given an opportunity to defend ourselves to KA whatsoever! Additionally, you told me yourself that you had reached a "Verdict" & that you would be referring your information to Lindax, who then ultimately made his own personal judgements in his interpretation of the rules, even though you felt only a Warning needed to be imposed! The point here is You, Lindax and possibly KA ALL made decisions based on your interpretation of rules that are vague and unclear! Even you admitted "the claims made were inconclusive", "intent here overall is hard to prove" & " likely was not to intentionally circumvent the site or clan sitting rules." Additionally, you commented "Ultimately we will consider this a "educational" experience and ultimately just warn". If it had been left at that, we could have lived with a warning, even though we felt it was unjustified. But it has now been taken much farther than that....and it never should have been!

#2 - again the rules aren't currently being updated. i explained / clarified that Keefie misspoke. There's a proposal being considered to look into an update that's been on my radar for 6-12 months or so. But there's no official rule change occurring ATM. If your CDF rep has suggestions on how to clarify it, happy to consider those there if we do look at an update in the future. I am sorry Keith misspoke! But there clearly has been grave concern that the "Rules on Sitting" need to be clarified and changed! That is my point! The needed to have been clarified and changed...but they weren't! Based on the current rules...we have broken none of them!

#3 - I don't control when the site updates their rule books or don't. We have cases that have come up in the past that provided those clarifications. As a site member (not clans) everyone has had to follow the same rules for years. It's been well discussed and very well known in general what's allowed and what's not. As long time members of the site I'm surprised if someone is totally oblivious to the site sitting rules, but even so that's what the "warning & education" is for on first time offenses. You admitted to me yourself that the "Site" sitting rules were not easy to find when I requested from you where they were! Even so...the site rules and the Clan rules regarding sitting have NOT been violated as they are currently written. You are citing previous precedents which you feel may have some impact on the current rules. This is not the same as the rule itself, which is what should be referred to. Things may have been "well discussed and very well known in general" by many of you who have been examining details of clan issues for a long time now. But we did not know these things, and it is unreasonable to expect or assume we would know them! FreeFalling 123 did not commit an infraction this time. He did indeed learn from the past......and did violate any sitting rule as currently written. nibotha did not violate any current rule either! There is no guilt or intention of wrong doing here! From everything you are saying....we were supposed to read the minds of those individuals who will someday rewrite the sitting rules for more clarification!

Second time offenses, the person should already know better and therefore no longer come with a warning. Again, that's a site rule, not clan rule. It's an important distinction. No violation of the current rules was made!!!!! Therefore, no second offense was committed! That my dear fellow is THE important distinction!!!

If you have suggestions for the site on how they should update site rules (as opposed to clan rules) then there's a suggestions section of the forum for that.

The only suggestion I have now....is that you examine you conscience thoroughly. You and Lindax are guilty of allowing your personal bias to warp your judgement! Rational examination of the issue would tell you this!

Paul

[/quote]

Posted: **Sat Jan 28, 2017 7:42 am**

PaulatPeace wrote:I would like to thank Dolelladan for trying to remind everyone why this thread was started. It was not to debate the TOP/S&M case....but to discuss the Clan Sitting Rules and the Site Rules as they may affect clans. I attempted to describe an example that could be used to start a general discussion. Josko then jumped in an made the discussion about a specific case he was involved in with TOP. That was not what this thread was intended for...but it has now evolved into just that.

Interesting pointing that this thread is not about TOP/S&M vase, but then the rest 90% of your post is about TOP/S&M case. Can you for once be consistent to your own words?

PaulatPeace wrote:I will no longer address Josko's comments.

Josko beats you with arguments so I know it is hard to accept that you don't have valid counterarguments to my posts

PaulatPeace wrote:Our motto "Omegas Fight As One" is not just some flowery saying.....it is the heart and blood life of our clan members!

I saw this is indeed your motto because all your turns are played by One, so it is obvious that Omegas Fight As One

Posted: **Sat Jan 28, 2017 9:33 am**

Posted: **Sat Jan 28, 2017 12:04 pm**

Paully, Paully, Paully...

As I sit here drinking my morning coffee (now spiked w/ Kahlua, ty) I am left to wonder. Do you honestly not understand things even after they've been explained? I'm honestly surprised at some of these questions. Genuinely.

The crux of the issue that I think you fail to realize, is the truly basic fundamental key of how this progressed (albeit in a non traditional way, because normally theres a C&A post made about it as you pointed out).

1) Someone accuses someone else and reports a clan sitting abuse thread in C&A. (site leads)
2) Admin reviews it and checks in with Head Clan Director (site leads)
3) Admin sometimes asks for defense, sometimes not. (site leads)
4) Admin then posts their findings in C&A. (site leads)
5) Admin fwd's the result to Head Clan Director, who then fwd's to any TO applicable for future consideration (clan leads)
6) TO decides what (if any) measure they will take in game terms (clan leads)

While I'm involved in steps 2-3, its not in a ruling capacity. The difference in your scenario was this:

1) Case was sent via PM instead of post, which was fwd to me because this is my area as Head CD to coordinate with admin.
2) This step occurred normally.
3) As you know, I requested info from the two parties involved. I thought it appropriate since it was a clan case to give this opportunity. You tried to answer for them (unusual and not appropriate) and then they finally gave their own defense. If you follow C&A cases, not always
4) Admin sent me their findings/ruling via PM. I asked who should send the verdict. He said I can. So I sent it.
5) Not needed because it was PM as opposed to a thread. I was already aware. This is where we look at the C&A case typically, and see if there are any clan related issues / affects in games.
6) Lindax remade one game at S&M's request after review. Now this is the part that apparently you are missing.

So to answer some of your comments / questions. The admin said of the cases josko brought up, "in general claims made were inconclusive". Referencing the handful of other players josko pointed out other than nibotha and FreeFalling123. KA was the one who determined "excessive amount of sititng within the clan in general" upon his review of the situation. (I dont know why you reference Lindax and I here, as you have been clearly told multiple times we do not have the tools to review such info. We rely on the admin for this).
You were issued a warning becasue the levels were excessive. This was not a review of every sitting instance to see if it was within rules or not. But its pretty easy to look at clans as a whole, and see that one clan is clearly using sitting at a MUCH higher rate then others and that they can be warned to make sure they are in compliance with the rules. As each person is supposed to be playing their own turns, whenever possible if one group is sitting at a much higher multiplier it really makes you question (in general) they are used to determine "emergencies" (my coffee spilled this morning and I have to clean my shirt so I can't play my turns! for example, would not be a legitimate emergency but might be claimed as such maybe). As I said, this wasn't based off "evidence" of wrongdoing, but evidence of a much greater rate then those of your peers. Thats sufficient to "warn" you to consider your actions and make sure they are in line with the site rules according to KA.

The clan dept didn't feel anything ultimately was considered a educational experience. Again, while the message came from me it was KA ruling there that I was referencing. That, was the SITE perspective against nibotha and FreeFalling123. Not the CLAN perspective of TOP's actions as a whole.

After Lindax reviewed, while the site viewed it as educational experience for the members / clan in question, the clan dept can make its own indepedant actions based on information provided by KA. What KA provided was one instance in which it was correct that two members of the site abused the account sitting measures, and that game was remade because its viewed as a major infraction to the site, and Clan Dept views it as a very serious issue and won't tolerate abuse. We dont define / verdict the abuse, we respond to whats provided by the Admins. Clear? S&M requested a remake of one game. Lindax agreed that was fair. Punishments could have been less (a warning) but they also could have been worse (a forfeit, or more).

It doesn't matter how many turns were taken, or trench, or anything else. Thats all irrelevant. It was found that in that game, account sitting abuse occurred. Therefore the opposing clan had the optoin to remake, and they took it. Doesn't matter who lead to us, only that it occurred. I upheld this in my verdict, because I believe it to be fair. If for example, KA had sent something saying what he did and Lindax said remake ALL of TOP's games for one verified account sitting abuse, then I would consider that extreme and likely have overturned it. As you pointed out, I've done so in the past. If a forfeit of some kind was proposed, I'm not sure where I would have stood on it as I prefer not to forfeit games and as you pointed out / quoted me in the past, its for rare instances. I'm not sure where I would have come done on this (or Lindax for that matter, if a forfeit was requested) but thats not what was requested. A remake was.
I'm glad the site views it as an educational experience because thats my preferred method of action, but that doesn't mean it didn't affect or perhaps harm S&M's ability in that game to compete. And frankly, it doesn't matter whether they were harmed. The fact that the abuse occurred is generally enough to offer the remake and its up to them to select that option if they want. If you dont want to give your opponent the advantage your are claiming they received, dont have the Admin bust your players for account sitting abuse.

Thats why I would encourage you to instead of continue to argue over and over in circles about your case, since you want to have a discussion in general instead of argue your specific case (even though your message to me is directly related to your case almost in its entirety), perhaps you should be instead finding out more details about past cases, finding out whats expected, etc.

You did provide me a response to my PM to nibotha and FreeFalling123. (notice, you weren't included on the original message because it was an issue between the site and two of its customers and their personal accounts). Just as you wouldn't provide their defense in a C&A case, you shouldn't be providing their response here. I requested for their personal responses (which they provided) as KA had requested. Designated spokesperson? I have no idea what thats supposed to be. This isn't a murder trial were they hire a lawyer. They need to provide personal defenses for THEIR actions. Because if its found as abuse, they could then say "we didn't get a chance to defend ourselves!"
Notice, you say you were their spokesperson, but I received no message from either of them saying that. (and even if they did, we would still have needed their personal defenses).

Clan Dept again wasn't the one that said educational experience. That was KA's ruling from site perspective.
I explained why the forfeit, and why it was upheld already and why I ruled how I did instead of over turning as I had done in the past. Whether you are winning the event, or in last place, Lindax and I both have said in the past we dont take that into consideration when ruling on issues.

I do understand "its more then the original case". Yes, it would impact your clan. But its still your clan members that have to defend their actions. S&M doesn't get to defend josko anymore then you get to defend nib / FF if he is found personally repsonsible for something hes done under his account. Yes, it may affect the clan but its still a personal action they did. I

For comparison, in the past players who have been busted as multi's get kicked out of games. If your clan has a multi in it, who is busted in the middle of war that player would get kicked out of all their games. Yes, it has a huge impact to your clan and your war but its still THEIR defense for THEIR actions. It sucks for your clan. Thats why you should make efforts to ensure your members 1) aren't multi and 2) aren't abusing the site rules. Otherwise, if they are found to be doing so, it may impact your clan even though its no fault of the other players within the clan.

The quote "several items of concern that josko brought up were not verified / accurate" does not mean that there weren't instances that did fall under. The specific cases he brought up and questions he asked, KA verified one broke site rules, and the rest were inconclusive / questionable so no actions were taken. There was one specific instance that we found in which we could provably show was not accurate (out of half a dozen / dozen cases he brought forward).

Regarding the rules, where they are posted, and how hard it was for you to find. Again I've said I have no control over what the site does with their rules. And I suggested before, if you feel the site should do something more / different, you should provide a suggesetion in their suggestions area. Get them to post all their rules, precedents, etc. But I have no control over that. Either way, the site still expects you and all members of the site to follow all their rules. As I said, that still doesn't excuse the actions, and members of your clan have been through sitting cases before and should have known the rules. If they didn't, maybe do something about it instead of assume? But again, out of my control. Make a suggestion.

Yes, its a tournament run by clans. TO is from clans team. I'm head clan director. This is clan forum. Yep. And as I pointed out above, site rules can impact clan games. Its a pretty simple concept mate. We provide additional clan rules in regards to sitting (because for example, site rules dont require you to post "IcePack for Player A" but th clan rules do. So both must be adhered to.

nibotha wrote:Firstly I don't see the difference between following instructions left by someone on your team and that player executing these instructions himself.
That said-it would be pointless to be playing a team game WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE FUN if individuals within the team are not contributing to the game in some way.
I have read the rules relating to this (non) issue since it occurred and no rules were broken.
Freefalling123 went out for dinner and was unable to post instructions in game chat in time for me to execute them. PaulatPeace messaged me on WhatsApp and we discussed the options.
At 07.08 GMT+2-
I wrote to Paul-"I am available now...I am here full time but can't be given a specific 2 hour window to take turns (I have a full time job)"

So I'm lying? Here's (in part) nibothas message in his defense. He was online and could take the turn. He messaged you to apparently discuss your options (whatever that means). He then leaves the turn because there are no instructions from FF123 and goes to work. FF ends up taking the turn. He had a chance to take it himself. He didn't because there were no instructions. He was online recently before turn expired. It was sat by FF. Its literally the perfect, textbook case of what shouldn't be sat according to rules.

So I'm not sure how any of this shows bias, or untrue statements, etc. But again, I know I'm not going to convince you otherwise. So at this point, between the rulings, the follow up PM's, and my messages / answers here in this forum I am not sure how I can be more clear. If you want to continue your discussion, please go ahead and do so. But I feel I've done everything I can to be clear, truthful, and explain both the rules and actions taken both to you in PM and here in public.

My goal here is less to convince you (as I think its unlikely), and more to educate the people who are willing to listen. I hope this clears any questions the public has about sitting, but it seems most everyone else is on the same page regarding the rules.

Good luck with the discussion. If you or anyone else have suggestions on how to update the clan rules etc please provide those details to your CDF rep, and post there and I'll be happy to put them under consideration when / if the time comes for a review. I'll no longer be responding to the thread.

Cheers,
IcePack

Posted: **Sat Jan 28, 2017 11:50 pm**

tl;dr

Posted: **Sun Jan 29, 2017 12:01 am**

iAmCaffeine wrote:tl;dr

really? i've found this entire "made for the clan world" drama rather fascinating.

Posted: **Sun Jan 29, 2017 4:10 am**

riskllama wrote:
iAmCaffeine wrote:tl;dr

really? i've found this entire "made for the clan world" drama rather fascinating.

Sometimes it's entertaining no doubt, but not when each post becomes a dissertation.

Posted: **Sun Jan 29, 2017 7:03 pm**

Icepack,

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2017 3:01 am**

I am happy to see you will no longer be responding to the thread. Perhaps we can move on to the intended reason for it.

I will say that I appreciate that you have allowed people to express their opinions in free speech without locking down this thread as has been do to others!

I will respond to your individual comments below, but it seems prudent to mention a few things here.

1) It appears from what you have said that the Clan Sitting Rules have not been considered in this matter because the "Site" Sitting Rules were broken and no action needed to be taken beyond that. The Site Sitting Rules are as follows:

Postby king achilles on Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:21 pm

Can I let another player take a turn for me when I am away from the game?

You can, with the stipulation that the account babysitter is not your opponent in any current game. It is common courtesy to announce in game chat that another player will take your turn(s) during your absence. Babysitters should only do what is necessary to take the turn(s) and should not interact with the community, start or join new games (except for ongoing tournaments). Furthermore, you should only take another player's turn if they are in danger of missing a turn, not for the purpose of gaining a tactical advantage.

I do understand that you seem to have deferred all responsibility for any repercussions to King Achilles as the admin who made the determination that FreeFalling123 & nibotha had violated the above Site Sitting Rules and were therefore guilty of Sitting Abuse. He also seemed to note that TOP was guilty of Excessive Sitting.

I will be taking this up with KA since his determinations seems to be what all the warnings & punishments have stemmed from. But I wiil also tell you know why logically neither of these 2 determinations make any sense:

1) There are only 2 specific things relative to this case from the Site Sitting Rules that must be adhered to. a) you should only take another player's turn if they are in danger of missing a turn & b) it must not be for the purpose of gaining a tactical advantage. It is indisputable that nibotha was in danger of missing a turn with only 32 minutes remaining....so this is a non-issue. We have already determined that no one can know what nibotha's intention was when he left his turn & went to work with almost 3 hours left on the clock. There is no evidence from the log, or game chat, or IP addresses that he deliberately left his turn to be taken by someone else. There is no admission from his statements that he intended to do this either. So where is the tactical advantage gained? It has been determined that nibotha, a more than qualified player on the map in question, with a 60% win record would have been able to competently take his own turn if he had made it in time. We have heard testimony From FreeFalling123 that the turn taken by him as the sitter was identical to the one nibotha would have taken per the instructions in the game chat. Where is the tactical advantage? If you review the game you would see there was already an advantage for TOP's Team from the initial drop, and that over several rounds of turns the TOP Team took advantage of this and additionally played well to the point they were decisively winning the game. The additional factor that the game was Trench also meant there was very little advantage which could be gained from 1 single player taking 1 single turn at that point! So......where was Tactical Advantage gained? It is impossible!

tac·ti·cal
/ˈtaktək(ə)l/
adjective: tactical
relating to or constituting actions carefully planned to gain a specific military end.

ad·van·tage
/ədˈvan(t)ij/
noun: advantage; plural noun: advantages
a condition or circumstance that puts one in a favorable or superior position

There is absolutely no evidence of any "carefully planned actions to gain a specific military end that put anyone in a favorable or superior position"!

Nibotha's turn was taken when he was in danger of missing it, and no tactical advantage was gained. This is the plain and simple truth....no matter how you interpret it! There is no getting around it!

2) Excessive Sitting. For this to be the case there would have to be a standard already established as to exactly what "Excessive" meant, & it would then have to be determined that a) this was not a customary practice by other clans from time to time and b) the sitting was not justified. Simply saying a clan sat X amount of times for it's player during a specific period of time is not enough! In our case during the CL 8 we have experienced many real life circumstances that got in the way of taking turns. Additionally we have had several players go missing on us completely and others who needed to leave for an extended period of time. Some of these occurrences happened while Clan games were still ongoing and we needed to cover their turns for them. One player had his first baby and then went missing. He still has not returned. Another player's mother died and he left also to take care of things associated with this. He has yet to return. Another player's grandfather had a heart attack and he left to be with him. He was gone for several days and we needed to take over for him. Another player got married and went on a honeymoon. We have had snowstorms, power outages, internet outages, children needing unscheduled care, work running over etc, etc etc....all legitimate reasons for possibly missing a turn. If we sat excessively for some of our players...it was because sometimes life happens excessively to us and we need help. These are justifiable reasons to sit for another player and were also mentioned in game chats. There was no crime committed in any sitting TOP did for it's members!

IcePack wrote:Paully, Paully, Paully...

As I sit here drinking my morning coffee (now spiked w/ Kahlua, ty) I am left to wonder. Do you honestly not understand things even after they've been explained? I'm honestly surprised at some of these questions. Genuinely.

The crux of the issue that I think you fail to realize, is the truly basic fundamental key of how this progressed (albeit in a non traditional way, because normally theres a C&A post made about it as you pointed out).

1) Someone accuses someone else and reports a clan sitting abuse thread in C&A. (site leads)
2) Admin reviews it and checks in with Head Clan Director (site leads)
3) Admin sometimes asks for defense, sometimes not. (site leads)
4) Admin then posts their findings in C&A. (site leads)
5) Admin fwd's the result to Head Clan Director, who then fwd's to any TO applicable for future consideration (clan leads)
6) TO decides what (if any) measure they will take in game terms (clan leads)

While I'm involved in steps 2-3, its not in a ruling capacity. The difference in your scenario was this:

1) Case was sent via PM instead of post, which was fwd to me because this is my area as Head CD to coordinate with admin.
2) This step occurred normally.
3) As you know, I requested info from the two parties involved. I thought it appropriate since it was a clan case to give this opportunity. You tried to answer for them (unusual and not appropriate) and then they finally gave their own defense. If you follow C&A cases, not always
4) Admin sent me their findings/ruling via PM. I asked who should send the verdict. He said I can. So I sent it.
5) Not needed because it was PM as opposed to a thread. I was already aware. This is where we look at the C&A case typically, and see if there are any clan related issues / affects in games.
6) Lindax remade one game at S&M's request after review. Now this is the part that apparently you are missing.

So to answer some of your comments / questions. The admin said of the cases josko brought up, "in general claims made were inconclusive". Referencing the handful of other players josko pointed out other than nibotha and FreeFalling123. KA was the one who determined "excessive amount of sititng within the clan in general" upon his review of the situation. (I dont know why you reference Lindax and I here, as you have been clearly told multiple times we do not have the tools to review such info. We rely on the admin for this).
Yes...I understand...... It is all KA's responsibility and you and Lindax are completely innocent!

You were issued a warning becasue the levels were excessive. This was not a review of every sitting instance to see if it was within rules or not. But its pretty easy to look at clans as a whole, and see that one clan is clearly using sitting at a MUCH higher rate then others and that they can be warned to make sure they are in compliance with the rules. As each person is supposed to be playing their own turns, whenever possible if one group is sitting at a much higher multiplier it really makes you question (in general) they are used to determine "emergencies" (my coffee spilled this morning and I have to clean my shirt so I can't play my turns! for example, would not be a legitimate emergency but might be claimed as such maybe). As I said, this wasn't based off "evidence" of wrongdoing, but evidence of a much greater rate then those of your peers. Thats sufficient to "warn" you to consider your actions and make sure they are in line with the site rules according to KA.

You can be assured I will be reviewing the level and instances of sitting done by other clan with specific interest in S&M...not only in the CL 8, but also in prior tournaments and wars. I am sure we are the only clan to have ever done this. I already explained above that the number of sitting instances alone is insufficient to justify a warning. This however seem to be something you cannot understand!

The clan dept didn't feel anything ultimately was considered a educational experience. Again, while the message came from me it was KA ruling there that I was referencing. That, was the SITE perspective against nibotha and FreeFalling123. Not the CLAN perspective of TOP's actions as a whole. Thank you for again clarifying a distinction previously undisclosed. The words were yours in the message you sent.....but I now understand you are saying they came from KA and he told you to tell me! Thank you for clearing this up! I again see the KA is the scapegoat!

After Lindax reviewed, while the site viewed it as educational experience for the members / clan in question, the clan dept can make its own indepedant actions based on information provided by KA. What KA provided was one instance in which it was correct that two members of the site abused the account sitting measures, and that game was remade because its viewed as a major infraction to the site, and Clan Dept views it as a very serious issue and won't tolerate abuse. We dont define / verdict the abuse, we respond to whats provided by the Admins. Clear? S&M requested a remake of one game. Lindax agreed that was fair. Punishments could have been less (a warning) but they also could have been worse (a forfeit, or more).

Oh yes.....things are now very clear.....Josko complained to KA....no C&A Report was filed.....You took statements from Free & nibotha which showed no evidence of abuse.....no site sitting rules were broken.....KA told you to tell me about the who;e thing and use his words....and then Lindax decided he was justified to again punish TOP ! Yes it is perfectly clear!

It doesn't matter how many turns were taken, or trench, or anything else. Thats all irrelevant.
That is pure bull excrement! It is totally and completely relevant....and you know it!

It was found that in that game, account sitting abuse occurred. Therefore the opposing clan had the optoin to remake, and they took it. Doesn't matter who lead to us, only that it occurred. I upheld this in my verdict, because I believe it to be fair. If for example, KA had sent something saying what he did and Lindax said remake ALL of TOP's games for one verified account sitting abuse, then I would consider that extreme and likely have overturned it. As you pointed out, I've done so in the past. If a forfeit of some kind was proposed, I'm not sure where I would have stood on it as I prefer not to forfeit games and as you pointed out / quoted me in the past, its for rare instances. I'm not sure where I would have come done on this (or Lindax for that matter, if a forfeit was requested) but thats not what was requested. A remake was.
I'm glad the site views it as an educational experience because thats my preferred method of action, but that doesn't mean it didn't affect or perhaps harm S&M's ability in that game to compete. And frankly, it doesn't matter whether they were harmed. The fact that the abuse occurred is generally enough to offer the remake and its up to them to select that option if they want. If you dont want to give your opponent the advantage your are claiming they received, dont have the Admin bust your players for account sitting abuse.

The "harm" that was done was in the game was to TOP and not to S&M! A game we were winning from the beginning was remade due to a completely bogus claim. I understand......it was not bogus because KA said it wasn't. I have already shown you the erors that were made in this determination. I also understand the everything conveniently falls back on KA! I am certainly learning here. Thank you for the edification!

Thats why I would encourage you to instead of continue to argue over and over in circles about your case, since you want to have a discussion in general instead of argue your specific case (even though your message to me is directly related to your case almost in its entirety), perhaps you should be instead finding out more details about past cases, finding out whats expected, etc.

If I didn't have to spend all this time defending our members against untrue accusations and unjust decisions, perhaps I might be able to do just that. Trust me on this: I will be finding out more about the "past" and you may end up wishing you hadn't made that suggestion to me.

You did provide me a response to my PM to nibotha and FreeFalling123. (notice, you weren't included on the original message because it was an issue between the site and two of its customers and their personal accounts). Just as you wouldn't provide their defense in a C&A case, you shouldn't be providing their response here. I requested for their personal responses (which they provided) as KA had requested. Designated spokesperson? I have no idea what thats supposed to be. This isn't a murder trial were they hire a lawyer. They need to provide personal defenses for THEIR actions. Because if its found as abuse, they could then say "we didn't get a chance to defend ourselves!"
Notice, you say you were their spokesperson, but I received no message from either of them saying that. (and even if they did, we would still have needed their personal defenses).

The ORIGINAL response given you was their response. Both FreeFalling & nibotha agreed I would provide it to you. How is it that you think I came to know about it in the first place? This however wasn't good enough for you. But still no incriminating evidence was found in their second response. This however doesn't seem to matter!

Clan Dept again wasn't the one that said educational experience. That was KA's ruling from site perspective.
I explained why the forfeit, and why it was upheld already and why I ruled how I did instead of over turning as I had done in the past. Whether you are winning the event, or in last place, Lindax and I both have said in the past we dont take that into consideration when ruling on issues.

Yes...I understand.....again it is KA's suggestion that
Ultimately we will consider this a "educational" experience and ultimately just warn / note
and then you and Lindax determined it should be much more. I completely understand who decided what!

I do understand "its more then the original case". Yes, it would impact your clan. But its still your clan members that have to defend their actions. S&M doesn't get to defend josko anymore then you get to defend nib / FF if he is found personally repsonsible for something hes done under his account. Yes, it may affect the clan but its still a personal action they did. I

It was our Clan's Sitting Policy in accordance with Clan & Site sitting rules that was followed! Free and nibotha did exactly what they should have done and did nothing wrong. We would do it again and we will do it again! We will sit for our players if they are in danger of missing their turns. I understand KA's interpretation of the events and evidence enabled him to make certain assumptions....but they were wrong assumptions and should not have been made!

For comparison, in the past players who have been busted as multi's get kicked out of games. If your clan has a multi in it, who is busted in the middle of war that player would get kicked out of all their games. Yes, it has a huge impact to your clan and your war but its still THEIR defense for THEIR actions. It sucks for your clan. Thats why you should make efforts to ensure your members 1) aren't multi and 2) aren't abusing the site rules. Otherwise, if they are found to be doing so, it may impact your clan even though its no fault of the other players within the clan.

I understand....but our players were not guilty......they were judged to be guilty....but they were not!

The quote "several items of concern that josko brought up were not verified / accurate" does not mean that there weren't instances that did fall under. The specific cases he brought up and questions he asked, KA verified one broke site rules, and the rest were inconclusive / questionable so no actions were taken. There was one specific instance that we found in which we could provably show was not accurate (out of half a dozen / dozen cases he brought forward).

I understand. Almost all of the cases Josko brought up were inconclusive & inaccurate....but there was one single case you thought you could maybe find some wrongdoing in. Sounds very compelling to me!

Regarding the rules, where they are posted, and how hard it was for you to find. Again I've said I have no control over what the site does with their rules. And I suggested before, if you feel the site should do something more / different, you should provide a suggesetion in their suggestions area. Get them to post all their rules, precedents, etc. But I have no control over that. Either way, the site still expects you and all members of the site to follow all their rules. As I said, that still doesn't excuse the actions, and members of your clan have been through sitting cases before and should have known the rules. If they didn't, maybe do something about it instead of assume? But again, out of my control. Make a suggestion.

Yes....we saw the Clan Sitting Rules, and made sure we followed them completely! We also followed the Site Sitting Rules not even sure of what they were. We assumed nothing. Our actions were without wrongdoing. They were simply interpreted as such and then used as a justification for punishment!

Yes, its a tournament run by clans. TO is from clans team. I'm head clan director. This is clan forum. Yep. And as I pointed out above, site rules can impact clan games. Its a pretty simple concept mate. We provide additional clan rules in regards to sitting (because for example, site rules dont require you to post "IcePack for Player A" but th clan rules do. So both must be adhered to.

And both were!

nibotha wrote:Firstly I don't see the difference between following instructions left by someone on your team and that player executing these instructions himself.
That said-it would be pointless to be playing a team game WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE FUN if individuals within the team are not contributing to the game in some way.
I have read the rules relating to this (non) issue since it occurred and no rules were broken.
Freefalling123 went out for dinner and was unable to post instructions in game chat in time for me to execute them. PaulatPeace messaged me on WhatsApp and we discussed the options.
At 07.08 GMT+2-
I wrote to Paul-"I am available now...I am here full time but can't be given a specific 2 hour window to take turns (I have a full time job)"

Thank you so very much for posting here what you said you were not allowed to. You are indeed an honorable person. I am actually very glad you did!

So I'm lying? Here's (in part) nibothas message in his defense. He was online and could take the turn. He messaged you to apparently discuss your options (whatever that means). He then leaves the turn because there are no instructions from FF123 and goes to work. FF ends up taking the turn. He had a chance to take it himself. He didn't because there were no instructions. He was online recently before turn expired. It was sat by FF. Its literally the perfect, textbook case of what shouldn't be sat according to rules.

NO my friend....it isn't! It is complete confirmation that what we have said is the truth! You take all nibotha's statements and you then make a erroneous assumption! You are making judgements based entirely on an assumption that the emergency sitting which occurred was planned and deliberate. You have zero evidence of this....yet you make this hyper leap anyway. Players should not be found guilty based on other people's assumptions. It is as wrong as wrong can possibly be!

So I'm not sure how any of this shows bias, or untrue statements, etc. But again, I know I'm not going to convince you otherwise. So at this point, between the rulings, the follow up PM's, and my messages / answers here in this forum I am not sure how I can be more clear. If you want to continue your discussion, please go ahead and do so. But I feel I've done everything I can to be clear, truthful, and explain both the rules and actions taken both to you in PM and here in public.

My goal here is less to convince you (as I think its unlikely), and more to educate the people who are willing to listen. I hope this clears any questions the public has about sitting, but it seems most everyone else is on the same page regarding the rules.

Good luck with the discussion. If you or anyone else have suggestions on how to update the clan rules etc please provide those details to your CDF rep, and post there and I'll be happy to put them under consideration when / if the time comes for a review. I'll no longer be responding to the thread.

I hope you will keep your word and not respond any more. My ears are getting very tired of hearing your justification for an injustice that has been perpetrated! Most everyone else is NOT on the same page regarding the rules. Most everyone else knows that trying to make the Clan Department Directors see past the nose on their own face is virtually a useless cause.

Cheers,
IcePack

PaulatPeace

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2017 3:28 am**

PaulatPeace, didn't you tell this thread is not about TOPvS&M case, yet you continuously bring that case back over and over again?

Can you be consistent to your own words for once?

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2017 3:59 am**

PaulatPeace wrote:My understanding is that nibotha took several turns from home and then had to rush to work. Discussion was still ongoing in that game as to the best move to make & he did not have time to take the turn. The time went way below 2 hrs and Free took the turn for nibotha as permitted.

Here you said it yourself. nibotha waited because discussion was still ongoing. Then he ended up having to get sit.
Point is : he shouldn't have waited if he wasn't sure he couldn't come back. This was, as far as I understood the case, 2h30 before he missed.
2h30 before you gonna miss your turn, either you know you can wait, or you are not sure you can wait.
I don't know what nibotha job is, but I am going to assume he know at what time he start working, so he knew that in 2h30 he would be at work.
Therefore he should have played, he shouldn't have wait.

PaulatPeace wrote: So where is the tactical advantage gained? It has been determined that nibotha, a more than qualified player on the map in question, with a 60% win record would have been able to competently take his own turn if he had made it in time. We have heard testimony From FreeFalling123 that the turn taken by him as the sitter was identical to the one nibotha would have taken per the instructions in the game chat. Where is the tactical advantage?

Basically your argument is, FreeFalling wrote the instruction in the chat, then FreeFalling played the turn for nibotha, following the instruction FreeFalling wrote himself.

I personally think that the existence of a tactical advantage does not have to be proven when speaking about sitting abuse. But since you spoke about it, let me tell you, as an outsider, here you are making contradictory claim.
1) you said that nibotha is as good as FreeFalling and would nibotha have taken the turn he would have played just as well
2) you said that the turn is identical to the one nibotha would have taken per instructions in the game chat.

-> If nibotha is as good as FreeFalling, then nibotha could have taken the turn himself before reading instructions from FreeFalling.
-> If nibotha have to wait instructions from FreeFalling, read them, play them. Then it means FreeFalling is a better player.

nibotha wrote:Firstly I don't see the difference between following instructions left by someone on your team and that player executing these instructions himself.
That said-it would be pointless to be playing a team game WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE FUN if individuals within the team are not contributing to the game in some way.
I have read the rules relating to this (non) issue since it occurred and no rules were broken.
Freefalling123 went out for dinner and was unable to post instructions in game chat in time for me to execute them. PaulatPeace messaged me on WhatsApp and we discussed the options.
At 07.08 GMT+2-
I wrote to Paul-"I am available now...I am here full time but can't be given a specific 2 hour window to take turns (I have a full time job)"

Well, this is bad you see, because nibotha said, clearly :
"I am available now" = he could play the turn
" but can't be given a specific 2 hour windo to take turns (I have a full time job)" = he know he may miss because of his job

so, he can play the turn, and he knows that if he wait he could miss. => he should played right away !

Back on the tactical advantage :

nibotha wrote:Firstly I don't see the difference between following instructions left by someone on your team and that player executing these instructions himself.

Well, first of all this isn't exactly true. But admitting it is true, the thing is, nibotha should have played BEFORE the instruction was written, since they weren't written when he was available, therefore there is then a huge difference !
The difference is between
1) nibotha playing before the discussion is over, and therefore deciding by himself,
and
2)nibotha playing after the discussion is over, therefore nibotha just following FreeFalling instruction.

1) and 2) aren't the same.
Or in this case 2) wasn't possible, which is why FreeFalling had to sit nibotha. Which is why the sitting was wrong, which is why it gave tactical advantage.

There is other points I agree with you btw. For example I completely agree with you that you are not supposed to be aware of past C&A case. I am not aware of those myself and I am not gonna research them.
I'd also agree with you that clan sitting rule should be more explicit. Which is why I posted asking for more explanation myself.
And there is many other points, in your post, Paul, and in IcePack post, on which I have no knowledge and you might be very right on them.

But yes there is tactical advantage gained, it's quite obvious, this is the exact reason why nibotha was waiting, to assure this tactical advantage, now yes, nibotha thought he might be able to play the turn himself. I believe you on this, I believe that nibotha didn't intentionally let the clock below 2hours. I am sure nibotha was wating for FreeFalling to write instructions, and then nibotha would have played the turn himself following those instructions if he could.
But still nibotha waited way too long knowing that he was at risk. He waited because he wanted those instructions, and I gonna have to say, imo, he took the risk of waiting because he was well aware that if he didn't come back on time, someone was gonna play for him. This is where it's not right. You should only wait if you are really sure to be able to take your turn.

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:41 am**

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2017 1:24 pm**

Keefie wrote:

Got my granddaughter sat on my knee, 54 mins, thanks!

Posted: **Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:05 am**

Vid_FISO wrote:
Keefie wrote:

Got my granddaughter sat on my knee, 54 mins, thanks!

AMAZING!

How do you do it!
A grandchild with an attention span of more than a few minutes!

Wish mine had a 54 minute attention span...............

Posted: **Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:42 am**

is it really over???

Posted: **Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:48 am**

My apologies. Been out of town and just got back. Took my turns, but little time for anything else!

Don, I respect what you have to say most of the time and think you are an honorable gentleman, so I will take a moment to respond to your comments:

Donelladan wrote:
PaulatPeace wrote:My understanding is that nibotha took several turns from home and then had to rush to work. Discussion was still ongoing in that game as to the best move to make & he did not have time to take the turn. The time went way below 2 hrs and Free took the turn for nibotha as permitted.

Here you said it yourself. nibotha waited because discussion was still ongoing. Then he ended up having to get sit.
Point is : he shouldn't have waited if he wasn't sure he couldn't come back. This was, as far as I understood the case, 2h30 before he missed.
2h30 before you gonna miss your turn, either you know you can wait, or you are not sure you can wait.
I don't know what nibotha job is, but I am going to assume he know at what time he start working, so he knew that in 2h30 he would be at work.
Therefore he should have played, he shouldn't have wait.

I appreciate that this is your view & opinion Don. But in the final analysis, that is all it is...your opinion. If you feel he shouldn't have waited you're entitled to feel that way. It is however what the rules have to say that ultimately decide if someone broke them or not. In this case nibotha did nothing wrong. There is no stipulation in the rules which says you must take your turn by a certain time. Not in the Clan Sitting Rules (which were not even considered here) and not in the Site Rules whatsoever! You and anyone else may have their opinion....but please show me specifically and clearly where there is no opportunity for interpretation, where it says in the Site Rules that you must take your turn by a certain time!

PaulatPeace wrote: So where is the tactical advantage gained? It has been determined that nibotha, a more than qualified player on the map in question, with a 60% win record would have been able to competently take his own turn if he had made it in time. We have heard testimony From FreeFalling123 that the turn taken by him as the sitter was identical to the one nibotha would have taken per the instructions in the game chat. Where is the tactical advantage?

Basically your argument is, FreeFalling wrote the instruction in the chat, then FreeFalling played the turn for nibotha, following the instruction FreeFalling wrote himself.

I personally think that the existence of a tactical advantage does not have to be proven when speaking about sitting abuse. But since you spoke about it, let me tell you, as an outsider, here you are making contradictory claim.
1) you said that nibotha is as good as FreeFalling and would nibotha have taken the turn he would have played just as well
2) you said that the turn is identical to the one nibotha would have taken per instructions in the game chat.

-> If nibotha is as good as FreeFalling, then nibotha could have taken the turn himself before reading instructions from FreeFalling.
-> If nibotha have to wait instructions from FreeFalling, read them, play them. Then it means FreeFalling is a better player.

There is no contradiction here Don! First, I said nothing about who was better. I simply said nibotha was competent enough to take his own turn, but this is irrelative to the point you are making. Just because nibotha could have taken the turn...doesn't mean there is any rule stating he must take it by a certain time! Our Team battle strategy is admittedly something you do not understand, but I will tell you it does not matter how competent a player is to take his turn....there are circumstances & criteria which must be met before a player does take his turn, and these had not been met yet as far as nibotha was concerned. He chose to wait to take his turn and did not make it in time. This is permitted by the Site Rules. Again, there is not stipulation in the Site Rules that a player must take his turn by a certain time. Additionally, there is no requirement that he have any specific reason for missing taking his turn. Any number of circumstances can account for this. no explanation is required in the rules.

nibotha wrote:Firstly I don't see the difference between following instructions left by someone on your team and that player executing these instructions himself.
That said-it would be pointless to be playing a team game WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE FUN if individuals within the team are not contributing to the game in some way.
I have read the rules relating to this (non) issue since it occurred and no rules were broken.
Freefalling123 went out for dinner and was unable to post instructions in game chat in time for me to execute them. PaulatPeace messaged me on WhatsApp and we discussed the options.
At 07.08 GMT+2-
I wrote to Paul-"I am available now...I am here full time but can't be given a specific 2 hour window to take turns (I have a full time job)"

Well, this is bad you see, because nibotha said, clearly :
"I am available now" = he could play the turn
" but can't be given a specific 2 hour windo to take turns (I have a full time job)" = he know he may miss because of his job

so, he can play the turn, and he knows that if he wait he could miss. => he should played right away !

As I said Don....this is your opinion! You are entitled to have your opinion just like everyone else! But the Site Rules DO NOT SAY he must play his turn right away!

Back on the tactical advantage :

nibotha wrote:Firstly I don't see the difference between following instructions left by someone on your team and that player executing these instructions himself.

Well, first of all this isn't exactly true. But admitting it is true, the thing is, nibotha should have played BEFORE the instruction was written, since they weren't written when he was available, therefore there is then a huge difference !
The difference is between
1) nibotha playing before the discussion is over, and therefore deciding by himself,
and
2)nibotha playing after the discussion is over, therefore nibotha just following FreeFalling instruction.

1) and 2) aren't the same.
Or in this case 2) wasn't possible, which is why FreeFalling had to sit nibotha. Which is why the sitting was wrong, which is why it gave tactical advantage.

Nibotha's logic is correct in that if "following instructions left by someone on your team and that player executing these instructions himself" results in the same move being taken.....then there is no material difference in the result. However, he also understands that a player should take his own turn barring any extenuating circumstances (such as running low on time). Running low on time is exactly what occurred and the identical move was taken by the sitter. NO TACTICAL ADVANTAGE WAS GAINED!

There is other points I agree with you btw. For example I completely agree with you that you are not supposed to be aware of past C&A case. I am not aware of those myself and I am not gonna research them.
I'd also agree with you that clan sitting rule should be more explicit. Which is why I posted asking for more explanation myself.
And there is many other points, in your post, Paul, and in IcePack post, on which I have no knowledge and you might be very right on them.

But yes there is tactical advantage gained, it's quite obvious, this is the exact reason why nibotha was waiting, to assure this tactical advantage, now yes, nibotha thought he might be able to play the turn himself. I believe you on this, I believe that nibotha didn't intentionally let the clock below 2hours. I am sure nibotha was wating for FreeFalling to write instructions, and then nibotha would have played the turn himself following those instructions if he could.
But still nibotha waited way too long knowing that he was at risk. He waited because he wanted those instructions, and I gonna have to say, imo, he took the risk of waiting because he was well aware that if he didn't come back on time, someone was gonna play for him. This is where it's not right. You should only wait if you are really sure to be able to take your turn.

I would agree with you Don...if there was something in the Site Rules that states this...but there is not! Intent is not required and "being sure" you will be able to take your turn is not required. If this were the case, we all are guilty of breaking the rules every time anyone misses their turn for any reason! We thought we would make it in time and take our own turn....but real life may sometimes gets in the way. That is why sitters are permitted....and that is why emergency sitting is acceptable.

Thank you Don for your thoughts. I appreciate them.

Paul

Conquer Club

Clan Sitting Rules Discussion

Re: Clan Sitting Rules Discussion

Re: Clan Sitting Rules Discussion

Re: Clan Sitting Rules Discussion

Re: Clan Sitting Rules Discussion

Re: Clan Sitting Rules Discussion

Re: Clan Sitting Rules Discussion

Re: Clan Sitting Rules Discussion

Re: Clan Sitting Rules Discussion

Re: Clan Sitting Rules Discussion

Re: Clan Sitting Rules Discussion

Re: Clan Sitting Rules Discussion

Re: Clan Sitting Rules Discussion

Re: Clan Sitting Rules Discussion

Re: Clan Sitting Rules Discussion

Re: Clan Sitting Rules Discussion

Re: Clan Sitting Rules Discussion

Re: Clan Sitting Rules Discussion

Re: Clan Sitting Rules Discussion

Re: Clan Sitting Rules Discussion

Re: Clan Sitting Rules Discussion

Re: Clan Sitting Rules Discussion

Re: Clan Sitting Rules Discussion

Re: Clan Sitting Rules Discussion

Re: Clan Sitting Rules Discussion

Re: Clan Sitting Rules Discussion