senatorhung Posted March 10, 2015 Report Share Posted March 10, 2015 (edited) okay, i wasn't sure if it was okay to post specific nations and rulers in the question forum (as was required in the abuse forum), but since the moderator did so in their response to my previous query, i will follow their lead. nation sit requested by Cuba on 17feb. approved by moderation on 17feb. no issues with this whatsoever. not asking for reasons. didn't even notice Cuba's sit request until 04mar when TBRaiders made a nation sit request. TBRaiders request was denied by moderation on 05mar, "TBRaiders, Denied, nation sitting is not for keeping nations active where the owner has quit." saw that o ya baby logged in and posted on this forum 07mar, and that rang some alarm bells, so i attempted to get some clarification on 08mar and 09mar. moderator replied to my 09mar post: "There are situations where a player may be able to post on the forums but incapable of logging in-game." agreed and if this is o ya baby's situation, again, no issue. however, looking at o ya baby's aid screen, we see that SOMEONE has been logging in to o ya baby's nation to approve the aid deliveries during the approved nation sit period after 17feb. in response to my 08mar post, Cuba requested a cancellation of the nation sit on 08mar, stating: Posted 08 March 2015 - 12:24 PM Notice of Cancellation of nation sit for o ya baby Nation is technically active despite legitimate request. Also noting that since I have not logged into said nation, there should be no conflict of interest should our paths cross in war or trade. the nation sit was cancelled by moderation on 08mar, so the situation outlined in the following 3 questions for clarification no longer exists. but it DID exist for 19 days from 17feb to 08mar. Q1: if o ya baby was ABSENT, and if Cuba had not logged in to sit o ya baby's nation (as he stated in his cancellation request), then who was running o ya baby's nation from 17feb to 08mar ? Q2: if o ya baby was NOT absent and was continuing to run his own nation, then how did the tools used to watch for nation sitting abuse not catch that he was continuing to log in ? (i am assuming here that the moderation tools would catch a third party logging in to maintain o ya baby's nation ?) Q3: if o ya baby was NOT absent, then both Cuba and o ya baby had login and password information for o ya baby's nation from 17feb to 08mar, since "Password and login sharing are part of a nation sit." but if o ya baby was continuing to login and maintain his nation, with Cuba ALSO having access and the capacity to respond on o ya baby's behalf, how would that not be considered cheating ? even if Cuba never once logged in to o ya baby's nation during the nation sit period to take advantage, the capability to do so should still be considered cheating if o ya baby was still in full control for those 19 days. i understand that the #1 and #2 nations in the game deserve special consideration, but if there has been cheating, there should still be some kind of accountability. Edited March 10, 2015 by senatorhung Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sakura Posted March 10, 2015 Report Share Posted March 10, 2015 I can't see how just knowing someone else's password would constitute cheating? If you decided for some weird and strange reason to PM me with your password, I can't see how me reading that PM would constitute cheating.Or for that matter, how the owner of the nation logging in during a sit would constitute cheating either? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
senatorhung Posted March 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2015 (edited) I can't see how just knowing someone else's password would constitute cheating? If you decided for some weird and strange reason to PM me with your password, I can't see how me reading that PM would constitute cheating. Or for that matter, how the owner of the nation logging in during a sit would constitute cheating either? if the owner logs in once or twice to 'check in' on their nation, that is completely understandable and not worth making any fuss about. however, in this case, the sitter professed NOT to have logged in, and the nation was continually active for 19 days after the sit was approved, so something does not add up. maybe i am just misunderstanding the whole purpose of a nation sit. my understanding was that a nation sit was for situations where the nation's owner is unable to login and wants a caretaker. if the situation no longer applies, and the owner can login (and has been demonstrated to login), then the nation sit should be cancelled automatically. if the situation does not exist (and i don't expect moderation to police this before accepting nation sit requests), but if it is revealed subsequently, then someone lied to abuse the nation sitting option in order to gain a possible advantage during wartime. that's cheating, even if they didn't get to take advantage of the exploit. it's like me going to a bank, and lying to get a line of credit. i can use that line of credit for leverage in future financial dealings. if my lie is exposed, even if had not drawn upon the line of credit, the fact that i was caught lying can result in my being charged with fraud (i.e. cheating). i understand that most players believe that CN is a political simulator, and dissembling in political dealings is par for the course, especially for those who might enjoy the role.playing aspect. however, lying to abuse the mechanics of nation sitting should NOT be tolerated. SOMEONE was logging in to play o ya baby's nation. Cuba stated that it was not he. if it was o ya baby, then the nation sit was allowed to continue despite the fact that the situation that prompted the nation sitting request no longer existed (if it ever did ... Cuba stated "Nation is technically active"). so, either Cuba lied in order to get a nation sit (which i don't really believe, and i don't expect moderation to police beforehand), or, what is more likely, that Cuba and o ya baby colluded to both maintain access to o ya baby's nation in wartime even after the situation prompting the nation sit was resolved (which again i don't expect moderation to police while it is ongoing). however, once this kind of chicanery is EXPOSED, i think explanations are in order, or consequences. these are the #1 and #2 nations in the game, experts in the game's mechanics. for them not to appreciate that abusing the nation sitting PRIVILEGES hurts everyone else in the game is not a reasonable presumption. an apology for letting the nation sit continue beyond the situation prompting its request is the least that i would expect, but i also expect moderation to clarify whether they have the tools to monitor nation sits and flag when the owner of the nation logs in after an absence. Edited March 10, 2015 by senatorhung Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hecate Posted March 10, 2015 Report Share Posted March 10, 2015 We're not here to wage your personal vendetta against a player. The rules haven't been broken. People are allowed to change their minds, it is surprisingly human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sakura Posted March 10, 2015 Report Share Posted March 10, 2015 Oh wow, the sat nation magically goes away once sitting is approved. If I knew that earlier I could have avoided the annoyance of ever sitting anyone. </sarcasm>I've known the passwords of at least two users -- and I'm sure I know at least 10 more -- as I'm sure someone has 'asdfghjkl' or something like that as a password. Or '12345' or '987654321' or 'zxc741asd852qwe963' -- I just can't see how knowing someone's password is a rule violation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts