mandatory sitting

Discussion in 'UK20 (Win Condition 80% Tribe Dominance)' started by iso-robbie, Aug 5, 2014.

Share This Page

  1. salems24

    salems24 Guest

    thanks for this... this makes me a happy man :)
     
  2. MoraleKi11er

    MoraleKi11er Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2011
    Messages:
    276
    Likes Received:
    34
    There was a TW circular mail on uk16 about forcing people to be account sat, It came under bullying. But I was told that if a player reads and confirms the in tribe rules about being happy to be account sat then they have no leg to stand on if they complain.
     
  3. Nauzhror

    Nauzhror Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    Messages:
    5,074
    Likes Received:
    101
    Dumbest internal mail ever. It's beyond obvious that a duke can't "force" you to set them as sitter. It's also beyond obvious that they can dismiss you for not doing so.

    Also the argument that you should trust your members is nonsense and hypocritical.

    To suggest that the leader should trust their members, but that the members shouldn't trust their leader is a huge issue. Joining a tribe should be a bigger decision than inviting someone is.

    You can recruit several members. You can only join one tribe. Thus your tribe has more impact on you, than you do on it.
     
    Lord Ashfordly VIII likes this.
  4. darkcastleking

    darkcastleking Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    0
    Am I right in thinking that if the duke sits your account and then kicks you out of the tribe, they are not allowed to use the information gained from the sit or pass this information to others to be used against this player. I ask this because I know many leaders state that if the player doesn't have enough troops the player will be kicked and farmed by the tribe. This implies the leader is going to use the information such as troop counts gained from the account sit against the player. Also it seems that it is quite easy to circumvent the rule by passing the information through an external means such as Skype.

    This is the rule in question:

    "Account sitters that intentionally destroy or seriously damage an account they are sitting will be punished. This includes suiciding troops, downgrading buildings, or supplying information about the account to a third party."
     
  5. Cold-Fusion

    Cold-Fusion Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Messages:
    3,372
    Likes Received:
    57
    They can't directly use it i.e on tribal forums but skype is where the rule hits a brick wall
     
    Lord Ashfordly VIII likes this.
  6. Nauzhror

    Nauzhror Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    Messages:
    5,074
    Likes Received:
    101
    Correct.

    Unfortunately, yes, this is also true.
     
  7. sycho cj

    sycho cj Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    0
    anyone still got that circ?
     
  8. AuthorityIssues

    AuthorityIssues <img src="http://i1318.photobucket.com/albums/t655

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2011
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    6
    This one?

     
  9. baron von dad

    baron von dad New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2013
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Surely if Dukes post on their tribal page that mandatory e-sits are required this couldn`t be considered bullying.

    Never understood this one tbh.
     
  10. sean

    sean Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    Messages:
    622
    Likes Received:
    8
    It's not a rule that's black and white in my view, depends what "being forced" is. If someone says "set me as your sitter or I'll dismiss you from the tribe" that's not being forced, they are the leader of the tribe and have rules in place. I think it's impossible to force someone to set someone else as their sitter. If the rule said something more about threatening someone it would make more sense.