Account sitting


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.

Rendering troops useless was one situation, attacking was another that would only come into play if the first was allowable. Basically, the logic for why it would be allowed is this. Sending the troops on a several day trip is not technically damaging it. It is simply a long farming run. He is not losing any troops and I am not allowing anyone to attack him during the sitting period. That is why it is not "seriously damaging" the account, as no actual damage is being done. Farming it afterwards is unrelated to the sitting. The argument for that is that even if any crime has been committed during the sitting period, your actions after the 24 hour period is up are not against the rules as they no longer relate to you account sitting him. So even if you broke the rules regarding what you can do as a sitter, you are not breaking any more rules by attacking him after the waiting period.

Not saying that I actually agree with those things, it's just that it seems to me like you can take advantage of sitting someone without technically breaking the rules.


Contributing Poster
Common sense is usually my rule of thumb. And when in doubt there's a support ticket, and then you get an answer that you can go by and call foul if need be.


Here's one: You're sitting an account of a tribemate and their paladin is named "I am spying on your tribe for another tribe." It is my understanding that if you sit someone and learn via mail that he's a spy, you can tell your tribe's leaders, end your account sitting, and allow the account to be attacked by other people. If you learned this via the paladin's name, would you be allowed to tell the leader of your tribe? It seems like it would technically fall under passing on "troop information about an account you are sitting."


Defining what does and what doesn't fall under the "seriously damage" category is a matter of opinion.
Playing the account for its OWN benefit is NOT a 'matter of opinion.' If you send the troops away so that you can farm the village, that is an action you did for YOUR own benefit, not for the benefit of the sat account. Should the account owner object to the action, you would be found guilty of acting against the rules.


Here is one that I actually need to know an answer to, this isn't a hypothetical. One of my tribes has a weekly requirement kind of deal, where we give everyone standards that they have to meet. If I were to sit everyone in the tribe as a way to make sure that they met it or to see what their standard should be, would none of them be able to attack the same villages for 24 hours?

Atomic Cloud

I'm fairly sure about this but just wanted to make sure:

Player A quits and doesn't set a sitter, just lets the tribe know and walks away. Player B quits and sets Player C as sitter to hand out their villages.

Can Player C use Player B's account to clear Player A for Player D to noble, then Player C passes account sitting of Player B to Player D and Player C (after 24h) nobles player B?

Player player player player.
Last edited by a moderator: