Sitters

Edited by Corual - 27 Mar 2010 at 00:09

Let me throw my hat into the ring as well.  I would like to see a non-restrictive system for supporting account sitting.  Perhaps even two levels of access-sharing:  one that protects the account from abuse, allowing only limited activity such as building units and buildings, and trading between account cities, and another for more trusted members that allows pretty much anything except spending prestige or buying more.

I've seen other systems set up such that while an account is set as being babysat, the actual account owner can see and do nothing.  This doesn't sit right with me.  I believe the account owner should always be able to monitor what's happening, and revoke access early if he sees something that gives him cause for concern.  This further justifies allowing a player the level of access he actually needs to account-sit effectively in any situation.  To prevent abuse (presuming one considers dual attention on a single account to qualify as such), there could simply be a long cooldown (like 24 hours) on re-enabling account sitting by the same player.

I do not feel strongly on the issue, but my sentiment does lean toward the belief that, if you trust someone to share your account fully with them (i.e. not account sitting but outright sharing of account credentials on a long-term basis), that's your business and your risk (assuming all involved parties do not have permanent access to more individual accounts than they are allowed to own outright).  What such "co-conspirators" gain in increased online activity, they lose in ability to grow and spread using separate accounts.  In my mind, the situation is still balanced and fair.

I doubt many would be like-minded enough to execute such a strategy very effectively anyway, but if you can, good for you.  For me the guiding principle behind these decisions is thus:  I always hate game rules that criminalize ingenuity or talent in any form, technical or social.  If you can pull it off and it doesn't cause actual problems (like bypassing the developers' profit-earning mechanisms, causing undue strain on servers, intentionally exploiting loopholes in game mechanics or security measures, etc.) it should be allowed.  After all, if one person can do it, so can another.  Talent as a differentiating factor is the basis of competition.  It's like counting cards--it's not wrong because it's abuse or cheating in a meaningful sense;  it's only wrong because the house loses the advantage...which is practically the player's objective in a nutshell.  So effectively, it's "wrong" to win.  But this game doesn't play against "the house," so there's no need for such arbitrary limitation on what intelligent player behavior constitutes fair play.


Edited by HonoredMule - 25 Mar 2010 at 01:05

I have seen quite a few different implementations of account sitting. Its not sharing. Its a limited access that allows for someone to ensure you are still building, not getting creamed by attackers, etc. You usually cant launch attacks or any aggressive actions and there is often a time limit that you are "allowed" to be sitting so that it doesnt become a 2nd account. Oh, and you also cant spend prestige points.

As SC suggested, Usually this is a setting in your profile where you add a username as a sitter then they log in using your username and their password.

Ooops, sorry, I started my reply before SC posted his!

Good point - and we don't want to be caught in the middle of a dispute between two players who have shared passwords.

What do we think of the option of allowing players to appoint another player who can log in (with the other player's username but their own password) and have limited access to the appointing players' account (ie not buy or spend prestige etc)?

I'm just a little concerned that we won't get round to implementing the "Holiday" option for a few weeks yet, given our other workloads.  Unless it's something that should be prioritised higher because it will become an increasingly demanded item?