Account sitting

Cowboy

Guest
As there have ben so many threads on different aspects of account sitting, I have decided to make this sticky. For starters, here are the rules.

§3) Account sitting


While a player is account sitting for another player, no interactions (attack/supply/support/co-ordinate attacks or support) are allowed between any accounts played on the account sitters internet connection (including friends, family and colleagues on the same connection). That includes all accounts, that are being account account sat by players on that connection.
All interactions are forbidden until 24 hours after the account sitting mode has been canceled.
An account that is being sat has to be played for it's own benefit, not for the benefit of other accounts.
Everything stated in §2 has to be followed.

Examples:
It is not allowed to use an account in any way that profits another account on the same connection.
It is forbidden to give away villages as presents from an account you are sitting (unless it is a trade of villages that clearly benefits both accounts).
It is forbidden to play an account you are sitting just to push other accounts, even if the other accounts are on a different internet connection.
It is forbidden to send suicide attacks from an account you are sitting to clean for other accounts (unless it is part of an agreement that does not put the account at a disadvantage)
It is allowed for you to attack and conquer villages with the account you are account sitting.
It is allowed for you to attack two players from the same tribe with your own account and the account you are account sitting for (i.e. separate attacks on separate players).
You are not allowed to use information about any accounts you are sitting for attacks from your own account, or provide this to other players, even after the sitting has ended.

This is only for starters, as I said. Any questions about account sitting can be asked here, and they will be answered.
 

agamemnus

Guest
Thanks. I imagine that the "unless..." statements are going to be very difficult to enforce and monitor, though.
 

lipe44

Guest
Thanks. I imagine that the "unless..." statements are going to be very difficult to enforce and monitor, though.
The first one is the most problematic, the other dont cause much problem.

In those cases the policy is "Temp ban first, ask after."
 

eagles14

New Member
I am going away for the weekend and would like a friend to account sit for me. The only problem is he is sending a unit to my village that can't be recalled until it arrives (another 7 hours to go). Will this be a problem?
 

Baldhor

Guest
I am going away for the weekend and would like a friend to account sit for me. The only problem is he is sending a unit to my village that can't be recalled until it arrives (another 7 hours to go). Will this be a problem?
no, interactions are not allowed once he start account sitting for you and 24 hours after he stopped ...
 

hubbards98

Guest
So...if a player sends an attack at an enemy player and then forwards his account to you...you then can send an attack at the same enemy player without reprisal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cowboy

Guest
For the above example, yes. But you cannot attack the player again with both accounts, as is stated by the account sitting rules.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

hubbards98

Guest
If I send a wave of attacks at Player B...then 10 min later I send my account over to you for Account sitting, can you then send an attack at Player B with your troops?
 

Baldhor

Guest
If I send a wave of attacks at Player B...then 10 min later I send my account over to you for Account sitting, can you then send an attack at Player B with your troops?
yes, basically, forget whatever happened BEFORE you started account sitting. What count is what you do once you start sitting (and for 24 hours afterwards).
 

Baldhor

Guest
sry but I think the answer was yes! Please cowboy double check. His question fit pretty well with your exemple

edit: this post do not apply anymore since cowboy reworded his own post
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Baldhor

Guest
I will explain my previous comment:


1/ Player A is attacking player C
2/ Player B is or not attacking player C (either case fit the exemple)
3/ player A ask player B to sit him
4/ player B is now sitting player A

5/ Player B can attack player C with either his own troops or player A's troops, but not both !!!
 

Cowboy

Guest
While a player is account sitting for another player, no interactions (attack/supply/support/co-ordinate attacks or support) are allowed between any accounts played on the account sitters internet connection (including friends, family and colleagues on the same connection). That includes all accounts, that are being account account sat by players on that connection.

This applies to my example. If player A and player B are attacking player C at the same time, And player A starts account sitting player B, Either player A or player B has to stop attacking player C.

EDIT: Baldhor, I can see what you mean- I worded my explanation quite badly, and will fix it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

omar94

Guest
Player managing many sitted accounts

Suppose I am sitting two accounts, A and B.

A)
1- Can I support A villages with B troops ?
2- Can I attack the same target with both A and B ?

B)
At any moment, player A whose account is sitted by me, can log in and attack a target that I am attacking: True or False

C)
If I sent attack through A account on a target, when will I be able to attack this target with my account?
- after A troops return
or
- after A troops attack




You have 1 minute,
I you have a question raise your hand,
Good luck.:icon_smile:
 

Baldhor

Guest
Suppose I am sitting two accounts, A and B.

A)
1- Can I support A villages with B troops ? no interaction permitted
2- Can I attack the same target with both A and B ? no

B)
At any moment, player A whose account is sitted by me, can log in and attack a target that I am attacking: True or False
if you mean you are attacking with your own account, response is no

C)
If I sent attack through A account on a target, when will I be able to attack this target with my account?
- after A troops return
or
- after A troops attack
none, you must wait 24 hours after the sitting was terminated


You have 1 minute,
I you have a question raise your hand,
Good luck.:icon_smile:
see in bold
 

omar94

Guest
...

Then its useless to sit an ally during war as I hoped. thanks.
 

Baldhor

Guest
Then its useless to sit an ally during war as I hoped. thanks.
it is usefull to do so, but has some defect ... if you sit a tribemate close to you, you are mostly weakening yourself in fact cause you will not be able to help each other
 

Hightower

Guest
When are the promised guidelines for dealing with dead sitter accounts coming out?

I recently had a player quit and set me as sitter, now I'm stuck with his account, until the mods produce the ruling. I have no desire to be one of the many banned players.

Can I just terminate the sit request, leaving the troops in place, and allow my tribemates to noble the towns? I understand that even this has led to banned players. With the moritorium on discussing bans, and the refusal by the mods to discuss this topic, this issue has turned into an invisible land mine waiting to destroy you.
 

lipe44

Guest
When are the promised guidelines for dealing with dead sitter accounts coming out?

I recently had a player quit and set me as sitter, now I'm stuck with his account, until the mods produce the ruling. I have no desire to be one of the many banned players.

Can I just terminate the sit request, leaving the troops in place, and allow my tribemates to noble the towns? I understand that even this has led to banned players. With the moritorium on discussing bans, and the refusal by the mods to discuss this topic, this issue has turned into an invisible land mine waiting to destroy you.
End the sitting and say to people wait a few days before doing anything.
 

Hightower

Guest
End the sitting and say to people wait a few days before doing anything.
That is what I thought, but I understand that this has led to banning of the sitter anyways. Wasn't there supposed to be an official ruling on this?