Moderator: Community Team
jpcloet wrote:I find this a very interesting topic.
So why should the people who handed out their password not be held accountable for what was done with their account?
On the other hand, there should be a better way to allow account sitting. If you've ever played Tribal Wars, you can hand over temporary control of your game, but not your actual account.
Downey wrote:IMHO, if you're stupid enough to give out your password to ANYBODY then you deserve any and all repercussions you get.
jarrett155 wrote:Max never abused any of the accounts before the block was set in place
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
Jeff Hardy wrote:Downey wrote:IMHO, if you're stupid enough to give out your password to ANYBODY then you deserve any and all repercussions you get.
i just gave my password to demonfork because im not sure if ill be around tomorrow and i dont want to miss turns
if he messes around with my account while im not here (which he wont) would it be my fault?
would i deserve to be blocked from 50 players for being victim to an attack?
JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:Bruceswar wrote:Max was the main issue here. So what if he sat for player X. Does not make player X bad. One bad apple ruined CC for many people.
player x dint know in advance that max was an issue....geesh, come on. Lets not play stupid now. player x is responsible for his own account. if he handed his password out to another player that made poor choices, than he needs to suck it up and accept the reaction.
I knew there would be a chapter 2 this week in handed out passwords. Everyone is always innocent. Nobody ever does anything wrong. I think we watch too many convict movies to be honest. For once I would like to see a player stand up and say...yes I fucked up. I should not have handed my password out to 35 players. I do it because I like to obtain high scores on the scoreboard and will take any measure see fit in doing so. Than I will salute this player for being a man. But that wont happen. Too many high ranks only care about points.
sully800 wrote:I agree that the account sitter option should be a top priority. The current system of handing out passwords to others has caused numerous problems in the past. It's unprofessional because we can't tell who is actually using an account or when someone is going to try to hurt another player.
Despite that, we are currently stuck with this system. And if the only reason these players were blocked was because max had their password then the block should be lifted. But I am not that familiar with the case so I cannot say that for sure. Links? Threads? Evidence?
Downey wrote:IMHO, if you're stupid enough to give out your password to ANYBODY then you deserve any and all repercussions you get.
MeDeFe wrote:So, is this the situation or have I misunderstood something?
max had the passwords for some 50 accounts (through whatever means) and manipulated the outcomes of the games these players were in for his own benefit.
As a result max was banned and all involved accounts were blocked from playing with each other.
That seems... very stupid to me, stupid by whoever blocked all accounts, the actual owners of which had done nothing wrong, and stupid by the owners for handing out their passwords (I change my password whenever I need someone to babysit for me and then change it again once I'm back).
But stupid or not, I don't see any reason to block 50 people from playing in the same games if this is the case.
FabledIntegral wrote:MeDeFe wrote:So, is this the situation or have I misunderstood something?
max had the passwords for some 50 accounts (through whatever means) and manipulated the outcomes of the games these players were in for his own benefit.
As a result max was banned and all involved accounts were blocked from playing with each other.
That seems... very stupid to me, stupid by whoever blocked all accounts, the actual owners of which had done nothing wrong, and stupid by the owners for handing out their passwords (I change my password whenever I need someone to babysit for me and then change it again once I'm back).
But stupid or not, I don't see any reason to block 50 people from playing in the same games if this is the case.
Close - Max COULD have manipulated the outcomes of these games. He did not. And yes - because he COULD manipulate the outcomes, the block for 50 people were implemented. So it's even more crazy than you thought.
Prankcall wrote:Maybe everyone is missing my point.I had Max sit for me,I could not find any1 else on ATM,it was a team speed game.This game was before any issue with Max arose,I knew nothing of the sort. Here is the link to the one game Max ever took a turn for me in Game 3113532 I believe the date shows this is before anything with Max was ever brought to the C&A. I played Max like 4 times and 3 were against him.So how exactly was he abusing my account?
Chariot of Fire wrote:Why would you need someone to sit for you in a team speed game? Surely you know you're going to be around for the next hour or so to play the game or why join a speed game in the first place? Sorry Prank, sounds odd.
Aradhus wrote:I personally think the account sitting system is being abused somewhat. You give someone your password when you go on holiday, or you wont be around your computer over a period of days.
Handing out passwords in clans so that there is always someone there to take your turns when you're out jollying it up at the dancing(or something) is an abuse of the system, in my opinion.
Account sitting should be restricted to cases where a player cannot get to a computer for 3 days or more, to stop them from deadbeating. Everything else is just taking advantage, and is unfair to those non clan members, and other cases, etc.
Chariot of Fire wrote:Aradhus wrote:I personally think the account sitting system is being abused somewhat. You give someone your password when you go on holiday, or you wont be around your computer over a period of days.
Handing out passwords in clans so that there is always someone there to take your turns when you're out jollying it up at the dancing(or something) is an abuse of the system, in my opinion.
Account sitting should be restricted to cases where a player cannot get to a computer for 3 days or more, to stop them from deadbeating. Everything else is just taking advantage, and is unfair to those non clan members, and other cases, etc.
You obviously need to go to better parties mate. Paragraph 2 you chastise those who go out partying it up, n then in Para.3 say that it should be restricted to those who can't get to a PC in 3 days. Come to Hong Kong - we'll show you how to party 24/7!
Return to Conquer Club Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users