Account sitting

DeletedUser

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.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Would it be considered pushing if you had a small account and a bigger acocunt deicded to let you take over, and before taking it over you gifted all your villages to it, then deleted your account and started playing the bigger one?

Note the bigger account was being sat by the smaller one on and off for days at a time prior to the switch,
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

DeletedUser

Guest
Would it be considered pushing if you had a small account and a bigger acocunt deicded to let you take over, and before taking it over you gifted all your villages to it, then deleted your account and started playing the bigger one?

Note the bigger account was being sat by the smaller one on and off for days at a time prior to the switch,

It is a violation of the rules for one person to know the password of two accounts on the same world. Having two accounts is still illegal even if you use the account sitting feature to sit a second account you own.
 
Upvote 0

DeletedUser

Guest
So if I attack two different players, where one player is sitting for the other, only one of them is allowed to retaliate against me? Because if both of them fight back it would be a coordinated attack. But if the sitter doesn't defend the village he is sitting it puts it at a disadvantage... seems like a loose loose situation.
 
Upvote 0

Seagryfn

Guest
So if I attack two different players, where one player is sitting for the other, only one of them is allowed to retaliate against me? Because if both of them fight back it would be a coordinated attack.
Yes, if you are attacking both, only one can counter-attack... but only while the connection between them remains.
24 hours after the connection has been passed or ended, the other can be eligible to attack as well.
Coordinated attacks are not illegal... only coordinated attacks from (or less than 24 hours after) a shared connection.

But if the sitter doesn't defend the village he is sitting it puts it at a disadvantage... seems like a loose loose situation.
How so? 'Defense' is not all counter-attacking. The sitter in this case can use one of the two accounts he controls to counter-attack. If you were attacking someone controlling only one account, he could only use the one account he controls to counter-attack. The rule is there so that, either way, you do not face unfair retaliation when you attack an account shared with another on the same connection.
 
Upvote 0

DeletedUser

Guest
Ok i've searched and i'm still not sure, can someone answer this please?

I know you cannot trade between sat villages, i understand there must be no interaction between players but can both players trade as in buy resources from the same seller? (3rd party)

I asked support but they gave me the impression it is not allowed to trade resources from the sat a/c as in no trading at all from the sat a/c

Thanks
 
Upvote 0

Seagryfn

Guest
"Open trading" (the free shipping of resources from one account to another account) is not allowed from a sat account. The sitter of the account, however, can still place reasonable trade offers on the market, and accept the same. Market Offers and Open Trading both involve sending resources, but, a sat account may only send resources to other villages it owns (within the sat account itself), or make trade offers on the open market. Trade offers on the open market may be accepted by any player who does not share a connection to he game with the sitter/sat account.
 
Upvote 0

DeletedUser

Guest
A friend is quitting the game and he told me I can take his villages.
so, I started doing this by first scouting them (so I would know the ammount of defensive of offensive troopss) and then attacking them. If I attack defensive villages, I loose (a lot of) troops.

Now he offert me to sit his account so I could take them more easyly. I didn't accept it yet.
But if I'm correct, if I take the account sitting, I can't attack him for several hours (24h?). Can I attack him after this? If so I could clear his villages so I could take them more easyly.

So, should I just continue attacking him of should I accept the account sitting and clear the villages first?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

DeletedUser

Guest
Get him to clear his own villages. It's not hard. Just get him to support one of your villages with all his troops. Five minutes work and your problem is solved.
 
Upvote 0

DeletedUser

Guest
Get him to clear his own villages. It's not hard. Just get him to support one of your villages with all his troops. Five minutes work and your problem is solved.

This was also my first idea but ...
It is a Tribalwars-friend.
And I can't get in contact with him anymore for the past few days. I think he doesn't log-in anymore.
 
Upvote 0

DeletedUser

Guest
Meh, imo the rule could be argued either way. No doubt SeaGryfn will be along in a few hours to give you a definitive answer, but worse case scenario you'll just have to clear the villages yourself.
 
Upvote 0

busamad

Contributing Poster
Reaction score
30
I would pass the mail on as a support ticket to confirm what you are doing is OK.

My thoughts If you have an in game mail from the player saying you can have his villages you could take the sit pass it to another player to clear the villages for you.
Then wait 24 hours after you end the sit to attack them.
 
Upvote 0

DeletedUser

Guest
Aye, in practice it sounds okay, but in theory you still violate the account sitting rule; namely the one about intentionally destroying an account you are sitting.
 
Upvote 0

DeletedUser89403

Guest
Here is a hypothetical scenario: It's early world, me and a neighbor each only have one village. He asks to join my tribe and sets me as a sitter to see if he's worth letting in. If I send his troops on an attacking run that takes several days, would that be against the rules? And if that is not against the rules, would it be against the rules for me to farm him while his troops are out? While it seems like that would technically be dishonest, would it actually break the rules?
 
Upvote 0

DeletedUser

Guest
Here is a hypothetical scenario: It's early world, me and a neighbor each only have one village. He asks to join my tribe and sets me as a sitter to see if he's worth letting in. If I send his troops on an attacking run that takes several days, would that be against the rules? And if that is not against the rules, would it be against the rules for me to farm him while his troops are out? While it seems like that would technically be dishonest, would it actually break the rules?
It's against the rules to send his troops out, this is essentially sitting abuse.

Farming him would also be against the rules during the sitting period and 24 hours afterwards. The game will stop you in the majority of cases.
 
Upvote 0

DeletedUser

Guest
Here is a hypothetical scenario: It's early world, me and a neighbor each only have one village. He asks to join my tribe and sets me as a sitter to see if he's worth letting in. If I send his troops on an attacking run that takes several days, would that be against the rules? And if that is not against the rules, would it be against the rules for me to farm him while his troops are out? While it seems like that would technically be dishonest, would it actually break the rules?


Lifted straight from the rules (which you would have noticed if you actually bothered to read the rules like a normal person does before asking for clarification on said rules):

"A sat account must be played for their own benefit. It is not allowed to abuse account sitting. Account sitters that intentionally destroy or seriously damage an account they are sitting will be punished."


I think 'intentionally rendering troops useless and then regularly attacking' falls under the 'seriously damage' catagory.
 
Upvote 0

DeletedUser95593

Guest
Defining what does and what doesn't fall under the "seriously damage" category is a matter of opinion.
 
Upvote 0
Top