Valid Question

by **jpcloet** on Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:20 pm

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.

by **KoE_Sirius** on Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:58 pm

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.

Yeah..Its a better idea in TW for sure.

by **sully800** on Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:28 pm

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?

by **Downey** on Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:31 pm

IMHO, if you're stupid enough to give out your password to ANYBODY then you deserve any and all repercussions you get.

by **Jeff Hardy** on Thu Jan 01, 2009 5:13 pm

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?

by **jarrett155** on Thu Jan 01, 2009 5:21 pm

No, but following the logic of maxatstuys block, even if coded followed all the rules and babysat perfectly
then you should be blocked from playing him
as he still has the capability of abusing your account
whether or not he does is of no concern. Max never abused any of the accounts before the block was set in place

by **Jeff Hardy** on Thu Jan 01, 2009 5:32 pm

jarrett155 wrote:Max never abused any of the accounts before the block was set in place

i think you are wrong there mate

by **Aradhus** on Thu Jan 01, 2009 6:40 pm

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.

by **Megadeth666** on Thu Jan 01, 2009 6:55 pm

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=73729

by **MeDeFe** on Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:22 pm

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.

by **Downey** on Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:21 pm

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?

If they're your bud and you trust them one hundred percent then you can give your password away.
But I doubt Max was really good friends with 49 other people.

by **TheBro** on Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:31 pm

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.

Is it better to deadbeat or ask someone you think you can trust (or Max.......) your password?

I'm not disagreeing with you, just wondering.

by **Bruceswar** on Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:48 pm

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?

Here you go sully... http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=60631

by **Prankcall** on Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:56 pm

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?

by **King_Herpes** on Thu Jan 01, 2009 11:50 pm

The fact of the matter is not everyone on this list gave their password to max. He acquired some passwords by asking other people who sat for other people. Also some of the people only gave max a password once to take one turn for them and then changed it. Who's to say max took a single turn for some of these people. The team simply got lazy on this bust. Instead of looking through game history they made one huge paranoid block list for whoever had max on their IP ever or however that works. Some of these players don't ever even play freestyle games is one factor or they were not at the time.

by **Georgerx7di** on Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:28 am

Downey wrote:IMHO, if you're stupid enough to give out your password to ANYBODY then you deserve any and all repercussions you get.

Downey you've been on this site for a month, how the hell can you comment on anything. You don't know anything yet.

by **FabledIntegral** on Fri Jan 02, 2009 3:41 am

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.

by **demonfork** on Fri Jan 02, 2009 4:27 am

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.

Wow! I'm starting to believe that the people that run this site are completely clueless!

by **Chariot of Fire** on Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:50 am

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?

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.

by **The Neon Peon** on Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:51 am

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.

I deatbeated several speed games because I though that sitting on someone's account for a speed game is illegal. Some go on for several hours, and in others, you are just interrupted.

by **Chariot of Fire** on Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:58 am

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!

by **Prankcall** on Fri Jan 02, 2009 8:57 pm

What seems odd?That I have a real life and sometimes those priorities over-ride this? I guess to some that may seem odd.Point in case i just deadbeated a Casual game with you in it that in all odds I woulda went on to win.My point is had it not been a Team game I simple would have deadbeat.I did not want to do this and at the time Max seemed okay,he had no reports or pending problems and I had played against him a few times with players of good standing.

by **EagleofGreenErth** on Fri Jan 02, 2009 9:02 pm

Dont give out your password if you can't handle te results of your actions.... simple as that. I like how everyone attacks Max for what THEY did.

by **Aradhus** on Sat Jan 03, 2009 12:31 am

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!

lol, I'm Scottish.....

Valid Question

Re: Valid Question

Re: Valid Question

Re: Valid Question

Re: Valid Question

Re: Valid Question

Re: Valid Question

Re: Valid Question

Re: Valid Question

Re: Valid Question

Re: Valid Question

Re: Valid Question

Re: Valid Question

Re: Valid Question

Re: Valid Question

Re: Valid Question

Re: Valid Question

Re: Valid Question

Re: Valid Question

Re: Valid Question

Re: Valid Question

Re: Valid Question

Re: Valid Question

Re: Valid Question

Re: Valid Question

Who is online