Rejected: Account sitting permission levels

DeletedUser561

Guest
I do suggest a system, for when someone sets a sitter, allowing the person setting the sitter to control the permissions the sitter will have access to whilst sitting. Permissions may include:

Allow sitter to view own forum (yes/no) default on
[spoil]If the sitter is already in your tribe, then with this option checked, he will be able to see and have forum permissions carried over from his own account. In other words if he has baron access but you do not, whilst he is sitting you, he will have baron access through your own account. When you take back control of your account, it will automatically lose the extra access.

If the sitter is outside your tribe, he will not be able to access your tribe's forum at all.

This option is on by default and cannot be turned off, but it can be over-ridden by the next option:[/spoil]

Allow sitter access to your current forum permissions (yes/no) default off
[spoil]Having this disabled will allow a duke or baron to set anyone in the tribe, meaning the sitter will be able to view and have tribal access as he would from his own account.

With this option enabled, the sitter will have access to his own tribal permissions as well as yours. This is useful when a duke wishes an outside sitter to account sit - one example - the duke of a large tribe wants to account sit the duke of an academy tribe.[/spoil]

Allow sitter to edit your notebook (yes/no) default off

Allow sitter to edit your quickbar (yes/no) default on
 

DeletedUser66

Guest
Though the idea might be nice, its just another frill, which the majority of users would never use.

You should never have sitters from outside the tribe.
If you are so concerned and can't get a baron/duke to sit, demote yourself prior to setting one as a sitter. And if its a night sitter, surely a baron could do it. Or just go without.
Edit notebook, totally pointless. Same goes with the quickbar.

Sitters are soley there to act as the player themselves temporarily. If you can't trust your sitter with such basic things, don't set them as a sitter.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
What if they wan't to ask for support but cant be able to enter the forum...

As Lewder said, if you don't trust anyone to sit you, go to the doctor and let him treat your paranoia...
 

DeletedUser561

Guest
'Another frill' - I could say the same thing about shared tribal forums, yet that got implemented. I consider the graphical village overview a frill, to such an extent that I always use the classic overview, yet many people use the graphical overview. See, what I'm trying to point out, is that just because you see something as an uneccesary addition, doesn't mean others (many, in this case) won't find it very useful.

I could think of any number of analogies to explain why it is a good idea to have this implemented, though I'll stick with the matter at hand.

I'll assume these facts, from personal experience:


-I have needed to account sit accounts in other tribes, without the leadership therein neccesarily wanting me to view their tribal forum. One reason could be the player could not find any sitters inside his own tribe at the time, possibly due to lack of skype access, or any other number of reasons, including smaller than average player-count inside his tribe.

-I've also needed to sit a duke account in another tribe - in this instance I was helping set up a new tribe. While this is easily do-able, this addition would allow for greater flexibility.

-In various circumstances I have needed an emergency sitter, and the only players available to sit were perhaps not 100% trustworthy. There would be no point in them messing my own account up - the rules specifically warn against that, but the sitters are free to do whatever they please with tribe permissions, without any rule suggesting repercussions. For example: assume I'm the tribal forum moderator. Now suddenly I need an emergency sitter, and no duke or baron is online to temporarily remove permissions. Current settings leave me in a sticky situation - but with this idea implemented, there would be no problem.

-I have had the experience of my own tribe (I was council but not leader) being disbanded because the duke set an outside sitter. The outside sitter in question was a highly respected person, a leader of a top tribe (not in direct competition towards our own tribe), a personal friend of the duke, amid other things. The tribe got disbanded.



According to stats, there are 275,000 players on Tribalwars.net at the moment. These are real situations I've listed from my own view, how many more situations would 275,000 other players find themselves in, where they could make use of settings such as these?

As for paranoia, I've seen players far more paranoid than myself. I merely consider myself somewhat cautious. Out of the huge playerbase, you would recommend they go see a doctor? That's a really weak arguement, especially since some simple settings changes could remove the problems.

PS. if I incurred any offense, I apologize...
 

DeletedUser

Guest
No offense taken ;)

Well imo i like that you may have the ability to abuse these situations... Many players play this game form a mathematic point of wiew, but it is very hard to calculate every step of the game when you have to deal with humans... There are many things you could do to prevent things like this to happen though... For example set the whole forum as only wiewable for those with these privs
trusted_member.png
... Alltough for the dukes you should have two dukes in a tribe så you kan remove your own privs when setting a sitter...

And there are many ways more to ensure that your tribe will not be violated by sitters from outide the tribe... But still i see this as a part of the game to wreck an other tribes forum if they have a member or duke who's not thinking straight about these things...
 

DeletedUser66

Guest
'Another frill' - I could say the same thing about shared tribal forums, yet that got implemented. I consider the graphical village overview a frill, to such an extent that I always use the classic overview, yet many people use the graphical overview. See, what I'm trying to point out, is that just because you see something as an uneccesary addition, doesn't mean others (many, in this case) won't find it very useful.

Very true. Though its a completely different ball game. Shared tribal forums are NOT 'another frill' - its a significant part of the game. The graphical overview is for those who like to see things being built.

I could think of any number of analogies to explain why it is a good idea to have this implemented, though I'll stick with the matter at hand.

I'll assume these facts, from personal experience:


-I have needed to account sit accounts in other tribes, without the leadership therein neccesarily wanting me to view their tribal forum. One reason could be the player could not find any sitters inside his own tribe at the time, possibly due to lack of skype access, or any other number of reasons, including smaller than average player-count inside his tribe.

If the player cannot find someone in his tribe who could be stuffed to sit him, I would very strongly recommend changing tribes, as its obvious they won't give a shit when one comes under attack.

-I've also needed to sit a duke account in another tribe - in this instance I was helping set up a new tribe. While this is easily do-able, this addition would allow for greater flexibility.

How??? In that case you wanted privs. How does this show that the feature will be neccesary? :confused:

-In various circumstances I have needed an emergency sitter, and the only players available to sit were perhaps not 100% trustworthy. There would be no point in them messing my own account up - the rules specifically warn against that, but the sitters are free to do whatever they please with tribe permissions, without any rule suggesting repercussions. For example: assume I'm the tribal forum moderator. Now suddenly I need an emergency sitter, and no duke or baron is online to temporarily remove permissions. Current settings leave me in a sticky situation - but with this idea implemented, there would be no problem.

Once again, if you cannot trust a baron or a duke to sit you, you obviously need to join a better tribe. I've never needed 'emergency sitters' - however, I have needed night sitters in the past, and once you get into a routine with someone, ultimately it is somewhat like co-playing. And if you are under attack, just grin and bear it.

If you plan in advance IRL you would never need this feature.

-I have had the experience of my own tribe (I was council but not leader) being disbanded because the duke set an outside sitter. The outside sitter in question was a highly respected person, a leader of a top tribe (not in direct competition towards our own tribe), a personal friend of the duke, amid other things. The tribe got disbanded.

This is why once again, you demote yourself before you go, and temporarily promote another baron to duke. And once again, if you can't trust any baron, get a better leadership team. Shut happens, and sometimes you just have to deal with it. Learn from mistakes.

According to stats, there are 275,000 players on Tribalwars.net at the moment. These are real situations I've listed from my own view, how many more situations would 275,000 other players find themselves in, where they could make use of settings such as these?

As for paranoia, I've seen players far more paranoid than myself. I merely consider myself somewhat cautious. Out of the huge playerbase, you would recommend they go see a doctor? That's a really weak arguement, especially since some simple settings changes could remove the problems.

PS. if I incurred any offense, I apologize...

I am paranoid about sitters - but more how my account is looked after (it is why in my entire time playing TW, I have only been away from my account once for more than 100 hours) and how things are going.

Little use could be made with these. When I was going away on a 2-week holiday - I let my council know months in advance. Though I was only a baron, I was a key part of the leadership. When I went away for 2-3 days - once again, I let the council know in advance. From someone who is paranoid - I have been able to get by without these features. In both of these occasions I have mentioned, I have let a baron sit someone with duke privs. If I felt I could not trust my sitter, I would demote myself.

In short - if you can't trust your tribe members, get a better tribe. If you can't trust your leadership team, get a better leadership team/tribe. And if shut does happen, report them, and they'll get lolb&.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
This is a good idea on .nl they are discussing the abuse of sitters and this is a way to avoid it. +1
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Something like this was already rejected as you should always choose a sitter whom you can trust.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Something like this was already rejected as you should always choose a sitter whom you can trust.

Thats the point on TW you can't trust anyone your still in a strategy game and virtual friends are not real friends. Everyone would do anything to be n1. Or get more respect.
In a game like this you got no real friends only friends you could abuse.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
I've never had any problems with sitters in 5 years of playing, and neither has anyone I know who has kept their sitters to people they know, and tribemates. As for everyone not being real friends, I really don't think that's true, given the friendships I've made through TW.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I've never had any problems with sitters in 5 years of playing, and neither has anyone I know who has kept their sitters to people they know, and tribemates. As for everyone not being real friends, I really don't think that's true, given the friendships I've made through TW.

Depends on culture and a persons character offcourse but yeah i've made friends too even a girlfriend :p
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Right, so where's the justification for the post directly above mine? Is it not completely hypocritical as a result? :p

If we make people less responsible for who they set as account sitter, it will be used less responsibly. People will forget to check the rights they've given the person they set... we'd still have all the same problems. Those who would remember to set the permission levels at this point are the same people who would, now, check that the person they are setting is at least relatively trustworthy. The same people would still have the same problems.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Right, so where's the justification for the post directly above mine? Is it not completely hypocritical as a result? :p

If we make people less responsible for who they set as account sitter, it will be used less responsibly. People will forget to check the rights they've given the person they set... we'd still have all the same problems. Those who would remember to set the permission levels at this point are the same people who would, now, check that the person they are setting is at least relatively trustworthy. The same people would still have the same problems.

Sorry but yeah evil people are everywhere :p.


Than maybe a local campaign should help like we had on .nl about account security.
 

DeletedUser561

Guest
I've never had any problems with sitters in 5 years of playing, and neither has anyone I know who has kept their sitters to people they know, and tribemates. As for everyone not being real friends, I really don't think that's true, given the friendships I've made through TW.

I'm guessing you've always stuck with premades. You ever decide to go on a romp on the rim where you know nobody, where the tribes are dodgey at best, just to have fun?
Heck, I'm in a tribe right now where the Duke has severely limited choices for sitters, and it's a premade too. If this were to be implemented, that problem would go away.

Three basic options when setting an account sitter:

Access rights same as your own
Access rights are on par with owner's rights
Access rights: no forum, no tribe rights

This also means you can safely set an outside sitter. The "no forum" option would be checked automatically when the person is outside your tribe.

I fail to see how this suggestion is a bad idea.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
when someone would abuse the tribe rights or what they see in the forum, then they would also abuse your account, wouldnt they?
i mean when you cant trust that he wouldnt mess up your tribe, then you also should definitely not trust that they dont mess up your account, like empty your villages while your neighbour sends nobles, or kills all your troops, or anything^^

and when someone is the sitter of your account, he can always hurt you...there is no way to change this, so you must trust him

sure you can say that sometimes its difficult to find the right people so that you really can trust them, but when you set someone as sitter who you shouldnt have trusted in, because he abuses the trust, then you always lost, no chance then
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I swear Ive seen this one before...

This is from april of 2010, so this might not be a duplicate...this might be the one i saw before...

Also, I agree with Petn, that if you cant trust your account sitter, why even set him as account sitter in the first place? Set someone that you can trust to not mess up your account or your tribe, and you will find this is not at all necessary.
 

DeletedUser561

Guest
Why risk ruining things for your entire tribe when it can be avoided?

It isn't illegal for a sitter to mess with the tribe, but the rules clearly state that it is illegal to ruin an account you're sitting. That means the IG mods should be able to reverse negative effects illegally done to a sat account and should do so if a ticket is sent in without needing to revert to an earlier server backup point. The person who ruined the sat account would consequently be banned.

Justice, and all problems solved.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
err the rules are diffrent everywhere
on .de for example it isnt forbidden to ruin a sitted account^^
 

DeletedUser561

Guest
Then I pity those who play on .de

I'm speaking for .net here, but the general idea doesn't change. A sitter shouldn't be allowed to ruin things for a tribe, as it affects many players negatively instead of just one or a few. With this implemented it can easily be prevented.
 
Top