how many accounts r u permasitting

DeathDealer89 wrote: I agree with Rill, this topic has already been re-hashed enough times.  But I believe giving people the option of having a vacation is a lot more important than the possibility that people are perma sitting.

I think I said anything original or interesting I had to say about this topic at least a year ago. (Assuming anything I said about it was either original or interesting.)  I'd be interested in hearing what people who have joined the game in the past year or so have to say.

I have been sitting the accounts for anywhere from 6 months to nearly a year. It is for emergency use but I don't have a problem with others "permasitting." If they can handle that, so be it.

Personally I prefer accounts be used by their owner. I'm not happy with inactives in my alliance. As a matter of fact that is a point of (quite minor) contention between myself and others within the alliance. From farming and thieving unsat accounts to using troops and diplos and everything else of the sat ones, I'd just rather get them gone but I am a minority voice.

When accounts aren't logged on for 60 (90) days it is purged. If a sitter logs in, the system resets the timer. So, players can control as many as 6 accounts, forever. It doesn't seem like that is actually fun to me but if it's fun to them and not a violation, why don't we just leave them alone?

While we can debate the spirit of perma-sitting accounts, I have never heard anyone propose an effective means of enforcement. The gain is high (massive gold and item stockpiles are useful), and it's currently within the rules. Making perma-sitting against the rules will simply encourage players to pass on their actual logins and passwords, which presents a more difficult security problem than sitting.

"Simmer down now..."

What if a friend goes on vacation? What if they just want you to be able to make sure their cities are safe for a few days? Oh well, to hell with them, hmm?