Account sitting - what is legal?

[DeletedUser]

Can anyone clarify whether or not these actions are allowed? Reading the rules, I can not find anything that explicitly prohibits them, but they do seem to go against the spirit of the rules. Assume that I am A and I'm account sitting for B...

1. I send nobles to attack from A and send support from B to the same village, timing the support to land just after the village falls.
2. I attack the same player from A and B, but target different villages.
3. I send resources to a barb/inactive from A, and then farm it with B.
4. I withdraw support in an A village back to B.

 

[DeletedUser]

1. I don't think you can use the account in the way which would profit yourself on the same connection, it would also be using the account to support yourself (as one account nobled beforehand.) So no you cannot attack or support the same target.
2.No you cannot attack the same target.
3. No because you cannot attack or support the same target.
4. wouldnt be there in the first place unless the original owner sent it before setting you.

 

[DeletedUser]

thanks!

3. No because you cannot attack or support the same target.
4. wouldnt be there in the first place unless the original owner sent it before setting you.

So for 3., the "same target" - what does that refer to? I assumed it meant the same village, but you suggest the same player is also illegal. What about the same tribe, then? Or even allies?
4. Yes, assume that he did. Is it legal?

 

[Nauzhror]

thanks!



So for 3., the "same target" - what does that refer to? I assumed it meant the same village, but you suggest the same player is also illegal. What about the same tribe, then? Or even allies?
4. Yes, assume that he did. Is it legal?

4 is legal, the rest of your questions are very clearly answered in the rules:

Rule 2, paragraphs II. and III., must be adhered to, as if the accounts in question were sharing a connection.

No transfer of resources, coordinated attacks, support or attacks on each other or to the same player are permitted whilst connection sharing is in place and for 24 hours after it is ended or 48 hours after the last attack that was sent on the same connection has arrived. A coordinated attack means two or more players sending attacks or support to the same player.

It is forbidden to use an account on your connection to retaliate against players on behalf of an account on the same connection whilst sharing is in place and for 24 hours after it has ended.

1-3 are al illegal, 4 is legal.

 

[DeletedUser]

On 3 it refers to the same village (if you where attacking a barb, i.e farming) it also applies to the same player, as to the tribe you are free to attack different targets on the account of that tribe.

For no 4 i would presume so but i am not 100% for that Cat like theif would know

 

[DeletedUser]

1-3 are al illegal, 4 is legal.

that'll do for me, thanks.

 

[DeletedUser]

what if say a player (player b) from your tribe quits, but sets you (Player A) as sitter before they go.
player b accepts the sitting, and immedietely sends all troops out of the player A's villages, to support a random barb.
then player b cancels the sitting.
then 24hours later attacks and nobles these now empty villages.
is that allowed?

 

[Nauzhror]

what if say a player (player b) from your tribe quits, but sets you (Player A) as sitter before they go.
player b accepts the sitting, and immedietely sends all troops out of the player A's villages, to support a random barb.
then player b cancels the sitting.
then 24hours later attacks and nobles these now empty villages.
is that allowed?

Yes it is allowed, BUT, I would suggest only doing so if you have a mail from the player stating that they are not returning to ensure you do not get banned for intentionally damaging their account.

 

[DeletedUser]

what if say a player (player b) from your tribe quits, but sets you (Player A) as sitter before they go.
player b accepts the sitting, and immedietely sends all troops out of the player A's villages, to support a random barb.
then player b cancels the sitting.
then 24hours later attacks and nobles these now empty villages.
is that allowed?

If you have full consent of the owner then it would fall under the category of account merging (though not completely as it's about sitting, but since you cancel it and wait 24h it's allowed) and is thus allowed.

 

[DeletedUser]

cheers. thank you :-D